DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 17 and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities: In these claims, the phrase “an configured” is grammatically incorrect and should be “and configured” instead. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-22 and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claim 15 recites the limitation “the at least one electrical connection” the last line. This limitation lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear if it refers to “an electrical connection” mentioned earlier in the claim or if it is a different electrical connection. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “the electrical connection” to refer back to the earlier mention of an electrical connection.
Claims 20 and 28 each include the phrase “an insulator-indentation type connecting element.” The addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1955). See MPEP 2173.05 (b) III. E.
Claims 16-22 are also rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected claim.
Claims 25-29 each mention “the connecting element” which lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “the at least one connecting element” to establish antecedent basis.
Claim 30 mentions “the electrical connection” which lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “the at least one electrical connection” to establish antecedent basis.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 15-16, 18, 20-24, 26 and 28-31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4-6 and 11-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,352,270. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim substantially similar limitations and the patent claims are narrower in scope than the instant claims. The instant claims are anticipated by the following patent claims as described in the table below:
US App. 19/259,721
USPN 12,352,270
15
1
16
11
18
2
20
4
21
5
22
6
23
1
24
11
26
2
28
4
39
5
30
6
31
1+12
While USPN claim 1 does not explicitly mention a stator as claimed in instant claim 15, the windings in USPN claim 1 are usually part of a stator as is well known in the art and further evident from patent claim 10. Furthermore, the plastic portion mentioned in instant claim 15 is inherently present in USPN claim 1 and claimed as: an overmolding of plastic material integrally made with a portion of the electric motor. In order to be integrally overmolded, this portion of the electric motor must generally also be plastic. These interpretations also apply to the instant independent claims 23 and 31 as mapped above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 15-18 and 22-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnoldi et al. (herein Arnoldi) (US 2020/0271121) in view of Fujimoto et al. (herein Fujimoto) (US 2017/0317550). Regarding Claim 15:In Figures 1-5, Arnoldi discloses an electric motor (electric motor with stator 24 and rotor 26, see paragraph [0034], henceforth referred to as EM) for a fluid circulator (water pump 2), the electric motor (EM) comprising: a plastic portion (stator stack 7 overmolded by a first plastic material M1, see paragraph [0040]); a stator (24) with an electrical winding (winding of wires 8, see paragraphs [0039] and [0041]); a connecting element (supply pins 9), the connecting element (9) in contact with the electrical winding of the stator forming an electrical connection (connection between 9 and 8, henceforth referred to as EC) between the connecting element and the electrical winding (as mentioned in paragraph [0041]: “After this first step of over molding the stator stack 7 the supply pins 9 are inserted and connected to the wires and the winding of wires 8 is finalized.” This clearly indicates that the connecting element 9 and the electrical winding 8 are electrically connected); and an overmolding of plastic material integral with the plastic portion (plastic material M2 integral with plastic material M1 to form a single part boot, see paragraphs [0041]-[0042]), wherein the overmolding of plastic material sealingly encloses the at least one electrical connection (as seen in Figure 3 and explained in paragraph [0041] the overmolding M2 sealingly encloses the pins 9 forming the electrical connection EC).Arnoldi states that the electrical windings (8) are made from copper (see paragraph [0039]) and so fails to disclose that the electrical windings are made from aluminum or aluminum alloys. Arnoldi is also silent regarding the material used to make the connecting element. However, in Figures 1-4, Fujimoto discloses a similar electric motor (100) comprising a stator (2) with electrical windings (15) formed from aluminum wires (see paragraph [0032]) that are less expensive than conventional copper wires (see paragraph [0002]). Fujimoto further discloses that a connecting element (terminal 17) connected to the electrical windings (15) is formed from copper so that an electrical resistance is decreased (see paragraph [0034]). Therefore, based on Fujimoto’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made Arnoldi’s electrical windings from aluminum instead of copper since aluminum is cheaper than copper (as taught in Fujimoto’s paragraph [0002]) and to further make Arnoldi’s connecting element (9) from copper since that would reduce electrical resistance (as taught in Fujimoto’s paragraph [0034]).Regarding Claim 16:Arnoldi as modified by Fujimoto discloses the electric motor (EM), wherein the overmolding of plastic material (M2) covers all interstices of the electrical connection (as seen in Arnoldi’s Figure 3, M2 would cover the entire pin 9 forming the electrical connection). Regarding Claim 17:Arnoldi as modified by Fujimoto discloses the electric motor (EM), a portion of the connecting element (9) is accessible and configured to be connected to a printed circuit board (as seen in Figure 4, the connecting element 9 is connected to an electronic board 40 wherein it is exceedingly well known that these types of electronic boards are typically printed circuit boards, for instance as evidenced by Fujimoto in paragraph [0029]).Note that replacing Arnoldi’s electronic control board (40) with a printed circuit board would be obvious to try (as well known in the art and evidenced by Fujimoto) and would yield predictable results such as providing a circuit board of compact size, light weight and high reliability. Regarding Claim 18:Arnoldi as modified by Fujimoto discloses the electric motor (EM), wherein the connecting element is made of copper or a copper alloy (as discussed above in the rejection of claim 15, the connecting element 9 would be made from copper).Regarding Claim 22:Arnoldi as modified by Fujimoto discloses the electric motor (EM), wherein the overmolding of plastic material (M2) is configured to prevent an oxidation of the electrical connection (as mentioned in paragraph [0039], the overmolding materials eliminate air gaps between different components including the electrical connection wherein elimination of air gaps prevents oxidation by eliminating oxygen as is known in the art).Regarding Claim 23:In Figures 1-5, Arnoldi discloses a fluid circulator (water pump 2) comprising: an electric motor (electric motor with stator 24 and rotor 26 in boot 20, see paragraph [0034], henceforth referred to as EM) including at least one electrical winding (winding 8); a pump body (10) connected to the electric motor (at rim 43, see Figure 3), wherein the electric motor (EM) is configured to rotate an impeller (28) housed within the pump body (see Figure 3 and paragraph [0034]); at least one connecting element (pins 9) disposed on the electric motor (see Figure 4), the at least one connecting element (9) in contact with the at least one electrical winding of the electric motor so as to form at least one electrical connection (electrical connections between pins 9 and wires 8, henceforth referred to as EC) between the at least one connecting element and the at least one electrical winding (as mentioned in paragraph [0041]: “After this first step of over molding the stator stack 7 the supply pins 9 are inserted and connected to the wires and the winding of wires 8 is finalized.” This clearly indicates that the connecting elements 9 and the electrical windings 8 are electrically connected); and an overmolding of plastic material integrally made with a portion of the electric motor (plastic material M2 integral with plastic material M1 to form a single part boot, see paragraphs [0041]-[0042]), wherein the overmolding of plastic material sealingly encloses the at least one electrical connection (as seen in Figure 3 and explained in paragraph [0041] the overmolding M2 sealingly encloses the pins 9 forming the electrical connections EC).Arnoldi states that the electrical windings (8) are made from copper (see paragraph [0039]) and so fails to disclose that the electrical windings are made from aluminum or aluminum alloys. Arnoldi is also silent regarding the material used to make the connecting element. However, in Figures 1-4, Fujimoto discloses a similar electric motor (100) comprising a stator (2) with electrical windings (15) formed from aluminum wires (see paragraph [0032]) that are less expensive than conventional copper wires (see paragraph [0002]). Fujimoto further discloses that a connecting element (terminal 17) connected to the electrical windings (15) is formed from copper so that an electrical resistance is decreased (see paragraph [0034]). Therefore, based on Fujimoto’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made Arnoldi’s electrical windings from aluminum instead of copper since aluminum is cheaper than copper (as taught in Fujimoto’s paragraph [0002]) and to further make Arnoldi’s connecting element (9) from copper since that would reduce electrical resistance (as taught in Fujimoto’s paragraph [0034]).Regarding Claim 24:See rejection of claim 16 above. Regarding Claim 25:See rejection of claim 17 above.Regarding Claim 26:See rejection of claim 18 above.
Claim(s) 19 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnoldi et al. (herein Arnoldi) (US 2020/0271121) in view of Fujimoto et al. (herein Fujimoto) (US 2017/0317550) as evidenced by Yarger et al. (herein Yarger) (US 2010/0013345).
Regarding Claims 19 and 27:Arnoldi as modified by Fujimoto fails to disclose that the connecting element is further coated with tin. However, it is extremely well known in the art that electrical connecting elements can be formed from copper coated with tin. For instance, in paragraph [0156], Yarger states: “The contact terminals 112, 114 may be made of any electrically conductive material, such as, for example, metallic materials, such as copper, copper coated with silver or tin, aluminum, gold, etc.” Hence, it can be seen that copper coated with tin is a suitable material for a connecting element. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have coated the modified copper connecting element with tin, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 20 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnoldi et al. (herein Arnoldi) (US 2020/0271121) in view of Fujimoto et al. (herein Fujimoto) (US 2017/0317550) in further view of Albeck et al. (herein Albeck) (US 5,515,606).
Regarding Claims 20 and 28:
Arnoldi as modified fails to disclose that the connecting element (9) is of the insulator-indentation type. However, in Figures 1-7, Albeck discloses a connecting element (10) of the insulator-indentation type (connecting element formed by an insulation displacement connection IDC method wherein indentations 26 are formed in 10) to form a very high quality electrical connection (see column 4, lines 21-31). Furthermore as mentioned in column 8, lines 20-24: “In a manner not shown in further detail, one end of the winding of the choke 5 is connected to the IDC contact. Together with the IDC slit 23, the IDC contact forms the contacting zone of the terminal 10.”
Hence, based on Albeck’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed
Arnoldi’s modified existing connecting element (9) as a connecting element of the insulator-indentation type (for example the IDC connecting element of the type taught by Albeck), since doing so would provide an electrical connection of very high quality.
Claim(s) 21 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnoldi et al. (herein Arnoldi) (US 2020/0271121) in view of Fujimoto et al. (herein Fujimoto) (US 2017/0317550) as evidenced by Hwang et al. (herein Hwang) (US 2022/0029496).Regarding Claims 21 and 29:Arnoldi as modified is silent regarding whether the electrical connection is formed by at least of a mechanical crimping or a welding with the connecting element.However, it is extremely well known in the art that connecting elements of the type taught by Arnoldi are coupled to electrical winding using a mechanical crimp or welding. For instance, in paragraph [0008] Hwang states: “Meanwhile, the stator coils are fused with terminal portions of the terminals by being welded to the terminal portions of the terminals (e.g., welded by applying electric current) in a state in which the stator coils are compressed.”Hence, based on common knowledge in the art and the evidence provided by Hwang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed the at least one electrical connection by welding or crimping the connecting element to the electrical windings, since doing so would be obvious to try and would yield predictable results such as forming a robust, rigid connection between these elements.
Claim(s) 31-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnoldi et al. (herein Arnoldi) (US 2020/0271121) in view of Reu (US 2019/0319506) in further view of Fujimoto et al. (herein Fujimoto) (US 2017/0317550).Regarding Claim 31:In Figures 1-5, Arnoldi discloses a fluid circulator (water pump 2) comprising: an electric motor (electric motor with stator 24 and rotor 26 in boot 20, see paragraph [0034], henceforth referred to as EM) including a stator (24) with at least one electrical winding (winding 8); at least one terminal (pins 9) disposed on the electric motor; and an overmolding of plastic material (M1 integrally made with a portion (M1) of the electric motor (plastic material M2 integral with plastic material M1 to form a single part boot, see paragraphs [0041]-[0042]), wherein the overmolding of plastic material sealingly encloses the at least one terminal (as seen in Figure 3 and explained in paragraph [0041] the overmolding M2 sealingly encloses the terminals 9 forming an electrical connection to the windings 8).Arnoldi is silent regarding the at least one terminal comprising a slot and the other structure associated with the slot. However, in Figures 1-9B, Reu discloses a similar stator (1000), wherein an end of at least one electrical winding (end of coil CL received in a slot of terminal 130 PS as depicted in annotated Figure A below) is disposed within a slot (slot depicted as S in Figure A) of each terminal (130PS, see Figure 6A) of the at least one terminal; at least one connecting element (PS, see Figures 6A and 9A-9B), wherein the at least one connecting element (PS) is disposed within the slot (S) of each terminal of the at least one terminal such that the connecting element contacts the end of the at least one electrical winding forming at least one electrical connection (depicted as EC in Figure A) between the at least one connecting element (PS) and the end of the at least one electrical winding (as seen in Figure A below). Furthermore, in paragraph [0011] Reu states that this type of connection facilitates parallel connection of a coil without a complicated connection process.
PNG
media_image1.png
354
455
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hence, based on Reu’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Arnoldi’s terminal structure (pins 9) to be designed like the terminal structure described above by Reu (terminal 130PS with slot S in which with connecting element PS is received along with the coil end as shown in Figure A above), since doing so would allow for easier connection of the coils to the terminals without a complicated process while still ensuring a secure electrical connection between the stator windings and the terminals. After said modification was made, the overmolding of plastic would still enclose the modified electrical connection since Arnoldi mentions in paragraph [0039] that the overmolding materials eliminate air gaps between different components including the electrical connection indicating that the overmolding material (M2) would enclose the modified electrical connection in the same manner. Arnoldi states that the electrical windings (8) are made from copper (see paragraph [0039]) and so fails to disclose that the electrical windings are made from aluminum or aluminum alloys. Arnoldi is also silent regarding the material used to make the terminal that was replaced with the terminal structure described above (based on Reu’s teachings wherein Reu is also silent regarding the materials used to form the terminals).However, in Figures 1-4, Fujimoto discloses a similar electric motor (100) comprising a stator (2) with electrical windings (15) formed from aluminum wires (see paragraph [0032]) that are less expensive than conventional copper wires (see paragraph [0002]). Fujimoto further discloses that a connecting element (terminal 17) connected to the electrical windings (15) is formed from copper so that an electrical resistance is decreased (see paragraph [0034]). Therefore, based on Fujimoto’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made Arnoldi’s electrical windings from aluminum instead of copper since aluminum is cheaper than copper (as taught in Fujimoto’s paragraph [0002]) and to further make the modified connecting elements from copper since that would reduce electrical resistance (as taught in Fujimoto’s paragraph [0034]).Regarding Claim 32:Arnoldi as modified by Reu and Fujimoto discloses the electric motor (EM), wherein the overmolding of plastic material (M2) would cover all interstices of the modified electrical connection (as explained above to eliminate all air gaps as taught by Arnoldi, the entirety of the electrical connection even as modified, would be covered by M2).Regarding Claim 33:Arnoldi as modified by Reu and Fujimoto discloses the electric motor (EM), wherein the connecting element is made of copper or a copper alloy (as discussed above in the rejection of claim 31, the modified connecting element would be made from copper).Regarding Claim 34:Arnoldi as modified by Reu and Fujimoto discloses the electric motor (EM), wherein the overmolding of plastic material (M2) would fill the slot of each terminal of the at least one terminal (as explained above in the rejection of claim 31, to eliminate air gaps the overmolding M2 would fill the slots).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20160248292 – Fluid circulator with motor terminal connection structure. US 7479047 – Stator terminal connection structure. US 5975937 – Connector assembly for stator windings. See appended PTO-892 for more relevant prior art references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7571. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 pm -8 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights