Ex Parte Jayasoma et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 30, 201913384841 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/384,841 09/21/2012 92687 7590 06/03/2019 JONES ROBB, PLLC (w/Nony & Partners) 1420 Spring Hill Road Suite 325 McLean, VA 22102 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Sujitha Jayasoma UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 1004.0036-00000 3917 EXAMINER TRUONG, THOMAS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2834 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/03/2019 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): nony@nony.fr docketing@jonesrobb.com susanne.jones@jonesrobb.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SUJITHA JAY ASOMA and ANDREW PARSONS Appeal2017-010429 Application 13/384,841 1 Technology Center 2800 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 2, 4--12, and 26-28. Appellants have canceled claims 1, 3, 13, 14, 24, and 25 and have withdrawn claims 15-23 from consideration. App. Br. 4, 32-37. Oral arguments were heard on May 16, 2019. A transcript of the hearing will be placed in the record in due course. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify Control Techniques Dynamics Limited as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal2017-010429 Application 13/384,841 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to "stators of an electric machine comprising stator teeth .... " Spec. 1:3-5. In particular, Appellants describe an approach for manufacturing individual stator segments that, when joined, form a complete stator core. Spec. 1 :3- 22. According to the Specification, the disclosed approach reduces the complexity involved in winding stator teeth/segments and holding the various components ( e.g., iron core laminations and insulating elements) in place during the winding process. Spec. 3: 14--25. Claim 26 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with the disputed elements emphasized in italics: 26. A stator core comprising a plurality of stator segments assembled together, each stator segment comprising: only one tooth section; a back iron section, the back iron section comprising a retainer interface, the retainer interface being a cut-out having a dovetail shape;and an end cap, the end cap further comprising insulator engaging segments; wherein only one insulating element is inserted into respective spaces between adjacent stator segments, the insulator engaging segments retaining the insulating elements in the corresponding space and, the insulating elements being loose fit in the respective spaces. The Examiner's Rejections 1. Claims 2, 6-10, and 26 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Morioka et al. (US 2008/0315710 Al; Dec. 25, 2008) ("Morioka"); Nishimura (US 2006/0261699 Al; Nov. 23, 2 Appeal2017-010429 Application 13/384,841 2006); and Pleiss, Jr. et al. (US 3,821,846; July 2, 1974) ("Pleiss"). Final Act. 3-8. 2. Claims 11, 12, and 27 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morioka, Nishimura, Pleiss, and Wang et al. (US 7,116,023 B2; Oct. 3, 2006) ("Wang"). Final Act. 8-11. 3. Claim 28 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morioka, Nishimura, Pleiss, and Noguchi (JP 53- 133702; Nov. 21, 1978). Final Act. 11-12. 4. Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morioka, Nishimura, Pleiss, Noguchi, and Sheeran et al. (US 7,111,380 B2; Sept. 26, 2006) ("Sheeran"). Final Act. 12-14. ANALYSIS 2 In rejecting claim 26, the Examiner finds Morioka teaches, inter alia, a stator core comprising a plurality of stator segments, each segment comprising the claimed tooth section, back iron section and end cap. Final Act. 3 ( citing Morioka, Fig. 3). Although the Examiner finds Morioka teaches insulating elements positioned into the space between adjacent stator segments, the Examiner notes Morioka does not teach only one insulating element is inserted-specifically, loose fit-between adjacent stator 2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed February 24, 2017 ("App. Br."); the Reply Brief, filed August 2, 2017 ("Reply Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed June 5, 2017 ("Ans."); the Final Office Action, mailed September 28, 2016 ("Final Act."), from which this Appeal is taken, and arguments made during the oral hearing held May 16, 2019. 3 Appeal2017-010429 Application 13/384,841 segments. Final Act. 3. The Examiner relies on Nishimura to teach the use of a single insulating element and Pleiss to suggest an insulating element "can be loosely inserted into the stator lamination .... " Final Act. 3-5 ( citing Nishimura ,r 65, Figs. 1, 2, 14 and Pleiss, col. 1, 1. 63---col. 2, 1. 16, Fig. 4). Figure 3 of Morioka is illustrative and is reproduced below: FIG. 3 21 25 /' i _.,.,., ,,. . . :l' ./ ' ' J/ Figure 3 of Morioka illustrates a stator and, particularly, the details of a divided stator segment (22). Morioka ,r,r 14, 20, 42--45. Morioka describes the divided stator segment (22) as comprising a divided lamination iron core (26}-made by punching an electromagnetic steel sheet into a number of 4 Appeal2017-010429 Application 13/384,841 sheets having a desired shape-and a number of insulating bodies (23a, 23b, 24a, and 24b). 3 Morioka ,r,r 23, 26, 42--43. Morioka describes the divided iron core sheets of divided lamination iron core (26) are laminated on each other, but further notes "portions between the divided iron core sheets are not fixed." Morioka ,r 43. Morioka further describes that onto either side (i.e., the teeth portion, 26a) of the divided lamination iron core (26) insulating bodies 23a and 23b "are respectively press-fitted." Morioka ,r 43 ( emphasis added). Similarly on the end faces (i.e., the top and bottom of the iron core as shown in Figure 3), insulating bodies 24a and 24b "are respectively press-fitted." Morioka ,r 43 ( emphasis added). After the insulating bodies (23a, 23b, 24a, and 24b) have been press-fitted to the divided lamination iron core (26) winding of the divided stator segment with wire (25) is performed. Morioka ,r 43. Thus, "[a]lthough the divided iron core sheets are not fixed to each other, the divided iron core sheets are held by concentrated winding [15] through insulating bodies [23a, 23b, 24a, and 24b] .... " Morioka ,r 45. Nishimura also relates to manufacturing a stator core "using a plurality of divisional yoke elements after winding wire is wound on each of the plurality of divisional core elements in series." Nishimura ,r 3. In a disclosed embodiment, Nishimura describes manufacturing a stator core dividing into twice the number of pole elements (in the disclosed example, there are 4 pole elements, thus 8 segments). Nishimura ,r 7, Fig. 22. Four of the segments have an A-phase winding and the other four have a B-phase 3 We note that Figure 3 of Morioka incorrectly identifies insulating body 23b as 3b. Consistent with the rest of Morioka's description, we refer to this insulating body as 23b. See Morioka ,r,r 26, 43. 5 Appeal2017-010429 Application 13/384,841 winding. Nishimura ,r 7, Figs. 20, 21. In the completed stator, the A-phase wound segments and B-phase wound segments alternate. Nishimura ,r 7, Fig. 22. Nishimura describes a "simple" winding operation (the winding wire wound on the teeth of the stator core) in series that avoids problems of forming the A-phase windings connected to each other by a crossover wire and the B-phase windings connected to each other by another crossover wire at separate steps. Nishimura ,r,r 8-9. Further, Nishimura discloses an embodiment wherein a slot insulating film is provided at a space between the A-phase wound segments and B-phase wound segments. Nishimura ,r 65. In describing the benefits of the disclosed windings, Nishimura states: The A phase winding 3 or the B phase winding 4 wound on each of the teeth 2 of the divisional core elements 6 is wound in a aligned manner along the inner surface L of the corresponding slot insulating film 10-1 substantially perpendicular to the central axis O of the tooth 2. This makes it possible to prevent crossing or turbulence of the winding from occurring, and reduce the length of the winding. Therefore, it is possible to prevent deterioration in quality of the stator for an inner rotor type motor due to distortion of the winding ( copper wire). Nishimura ,r 65. Appellants assert, inter alia, Morioka expressly describes each side of a divided stator as comprising an insulating body that is press-fit onto the divided lamination iron core. App. Br. 12-14 (citing Morioka ,r,r 42--45). Appellants further assert that the press-fit nature of the insulating bodies in addition to the concentrated winding serves to hold the divided iron core sheets of the divided stator in relative position. App. Br. 13-14 (citing Morioka ,r,r 10, 42--45, 50). Moreover, when divided stator segments are annularly connected, at least two insulating elements----each of which are 6 Appeal2017-010429 Application 13/384,841 press-fit-are positioned in the space between adjacent segments. App. Br. 15-18. Moreover, Appellants argue the Examiner's proposed modification of Morioka with the teachings of Nishimura (particularly, the use of a single insulating element between adjacent stator segments) and Pleiss (for the teaching of a loose fit insulating element) would frustrate the manufacturing approach described by Morioka and that one of ordinary skill would not combine the isolated teachings of Nishimura and Pleiss and modify Morioka's divided stator as proposed by the Examiner. App. Br. 15-26. Where the combined teachings of references would produce a seemingly inoperative device, those references may be said to teach away from their combination. In re Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Sponnoble, 405 F.2d 578, 587 (CCPA 1969). When the prior art teaches away from a combination, that combination is more likely to be nonobvious. KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Here, Morioka discloses an approach for assembling a stator core by annularly combining a plurality of divided stator segments. Morioka ,r 8. Each divided stator segment comprises, inter alia, insulating elements press- fit to both sides of a divided lamination iron core. Morioka ,r,r 42--45, Fig. 3. Moreover, once the insulating bodies are press-fit onto the divided lamination iron core, a concentrated winding is wrapped around the divided iron core sheets and insulating bodies. Morioka ,r,r 43--44. Thus, "[i]n this way, divided stator 22 is manufactured." Morioka ,r 43. As an initial matter, we note that in contrast to an insulating element being "loose fit" in the space between adjacent stator segments (as recited in 7 Appeal2017-010429 Application 13/384,841 claim 26), Morioka describes the insulating bodies are press-fit onto the divided lamination iron core. Although the Specification is silent as to what constitutes being "loose fit," we determine that an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand and appreciate the difference between loose fit and press- fit elements. Compare Morioka ,r,r 42--45, Fig. 3 (i.e., describing and illustrating a press-fit connection), with Pleiss, col. 1, 1. 63---col. 2, 1. 16, Fig. 4 (i.e., describing and illustrating an insulating element loosely fit into winding slots). Accordingly, we disagree with the Examiner's interpretation that Morioka teaches its insulating elements are movable and, therefore, may be interpreted as having a slightly loose fit. See Ans. 9. In addition, we note that "[i]f the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698 (Fed. Cir. 1985). However, "[i]f the process limitation connotes specific structure and may be considered a structural limitation, ... that structure should be considered." In re N ordt Dev. Co., 881 F.3d 1371, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Appellants assert the claim language of an insulating element being loose fit in the space between adjacent stator segments imparts a structural aspect in terms of the amount of allowance between stator segments and that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a "loose fit" falls within a different class of fit from the press-fit ofMorioka. 4 App. Br. 18-19. 4 In the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to determine whether the claims comport with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Although the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. 8 Appeal2017-010429 Application 13/384,841 Moreover, we agree with Appellants that Morioka describes the insulating elements also serve to hold divided lamination iron core sheets in position during the winding operation. See, e.g., Morioka ,r 45. After the winding operation, the divided stator segment of Morioka comprises the divided lamination iron core sheets, a plurality of insulating elements press- fit to the core sheets, and a concentrated winding. Morioka ,r 42, Fig. 3. Even if the insulating elements were loose fit (which the Examiner finds is suggested by Pleiss, see Final Act. 5), there would still be more than one insulating element between adjacent stator segments (i.e., an insulating element on each side). To instead use a single insulating element (e.g., the insulating film of Nishimura) would change ( and frustrate) the individual stator segment manufacturing approach of Morioka. We agree with Appellants that "such modifications would have required substantial alteration and redesign of the steps of the manufacturing method of Morioka, and would not be a simple substitution of one element for another yielding predictable results." App. Br. 25-26. For the reasons discussed supra, we are persuaded of Examiner error. Because we find it dispositive that the Examiner's proposed modification of Morioka with the combined teachings of Nishimura and Pleiss is deficient as set forth, we need not address other issues raised by Appellants' arguments. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 26. Further, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 2, 4--12, 27, and 28, which depend directly or indirectly therefrom. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02 (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018). 9 Appeal2017-010429 Application 13/384,841 DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2, 4--12, and 26- 28 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). REVERSED 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation