COMMISSIONER'S DECISION
Obviousness: Magnetic Core Windings
The applicant's apparatus establishes the final form and shape of the end turn
portions of the windings of a magnetic core. It had been refused as obvious.
An amendment overcame the objections of the Office.
Final Action: Affirmed - Modification accepted.
*******************************************
This decision deals with a request for review by the Commissioner of
Patents of the Examiner's Final Action dated November 29, 1977, on applica-
tion 216,291 (Class 26-66). The application was filed on December 16,
1974, in the name of Alan L. Kindig, and is entitled "Method And Apparatus
For Forming Winding End Turns."
The application relates to methods and apparatus for forming winding end
turns and, more particularly, for establishing the final form and shape of
the end turn portions of the windings supported on a magnetic core.
In the Final Action the examiner refused all of the claims (1 to 9) for
failing to define patentable subject matter over the following United States
patent:
3,593,405 July 20, 1971 Hahn
Hahn discloses an apparatus for forming magnetic core winding end turn assem-
blies which includes a center-mounting member to receive the cores. Figure
1 shown below is illustrative of that invention:
(See formula I)
In the Final Action the examiner had inter alia this to say:
...
Claims 1 to 9 are fully met by the method and apparatus dis-
closed in the cited reference. Applicant's method steps in
claims 1 to 5 are the same steps as performed by the Hahn
apparatus which provides for simultaneous selective pressing
of preselected arcuate regions of a plurality of end turn
portions of a stator core member by engaging said pre-
selected regions with movable tool segments each capable of
adjustment to move an independent predetermined amount.
The apparatus defined in claims 6 to 9 is also disclosed
by Hahn and comprises means for preselectively and independently
determining relative movements of spaced apart tooling members
and means for forcing said tooling members against the winding
end turns in accordance with the movement patterns provided
for by the first means.
Applicant has argued against the pertinence of the cited refer-
ence but has failed to short how the claimed method and apparatus
differ from the reference. The arguments refer generally to
applicant's disclosed method and apparatus rather than to the
claimed method and apparatus. The cam surfaces of Hahn are
described by applicant as being of a kind which "do not permit
of convenient adjustment". The examiner agrees with this state-
ment but applicant has not defined in the claims any structure
which is readily adjustable or any method which involves such
adjustment. If this is the inventive improvement over the Hahn
patent, the claims must include this feature and must do so
in distinct and explicit terms.
...
In response to the Final Action the applicant amended page 4 of the disclosure
and submitted new claims 1 to 7. He also stated (in part):
...
It appears that Applicant's previous argument and the Examiner's
subsequent Final Action are based on the interpretation of one
or two words. It was Applicant's belief that the words, for example,
"preselectively and independently" should be interpreted as meaning
that before any operation one or more independent adjustments could
be made, that is an adjustment could be made to preselect a desired
movement for any tool segment independent of any other tool
segment. In the cited reference the cam ring may be replaced but the
replacement affects each tool segment controlled by the cam ring.
It is certainly possible in the prior art to replace a cam ring where only
one of several camming surfaces are altered to adjust movement of
one tool segment, but nevertheless all the camming surfaces on that
cam ring are replaced and it was Applicant's belief that this was not
"independent" adjustment. The United States Patent Office apparently
agreed with Applicant's interpretation of the wording.
On page 2 of the Final Action, under "2", the Examiner argues
that the "Relative movement of the tooling members is independ-
ent since each tooling member has its associated cam roller and
cam recess and the movements are preselected by the chosen cam".
This is not quite what claim 6 says at this point. It recites
"means for preselectively and independently determining .....".
Applicant still believes the replacement of a cam ring does not
come within the meaning of "independently determining".
However, in order to expedite the prosecution of this application
Applicant has amended all the claims (with the exception of the
added claim). It is believed these amendments will emphasize the
separate adjustment of each tool segment movement.
...
On March 10, 1978, the examiner referred this application to the Board and stated
that the amendments satisfy all objections made in the Final Action "except
for the excessive breadth of claims 1 to 4." He went on to say that this
objection could be overcome by adding to claims 1 and 3 a restriction along the
following lines "the step of adjusting the adjusting means so that one or more tool
segments will move a greater or lesser distance than the remaining tool segments."
We carefully reviewed the prosecution of the application and decided that such
an amendment would, in our view, place the claims in allowable form. According-
ly, we notified the agent, Mr. J. Lamb. He in turn, on April 6, 1978, submitted
amended claims 1 and 3. On April 24, 1978, further clarifying amendments were
made to these claims. Amended claim 1 reads:
A method of establishing a predetermined desired form and shape
of at least part of an arcuately extending envelope of at least
part of a plurality of end turn portions of a number of turns of
wire supported adjacent to at least one end face of a magnetic
core, said method comprising individually adjusting at least one
of a plurality of adjusting members which have means to cooperate
with respective tool segments positioned to engage arcuately displaced
regions of the envelope for individual predetermined amounts of
movement in a direction towards said envelope, the step of adjusting
the adjusting members enabling one or more tool segments to move a
greater or lesser distance than the remaining tool segments, and
thereafter moving each tool segment by its respective individual
predetermined amount to establish the desired form and shape of
the envelope.
In the circumstances we find it unnecessary to comment further because the
amendments made and the arguments presented overcome the rejection in the
Final Action. We recommend that claims 1 to 7 be accepted.
J.F. Hughes
Assistant Chairman
Patent Appeal Board, Canada
I have reviewed the prosecution of this application and agree with the recomm-
endation of the Patent Appeal Board. Accordingly, I accept the claims present-
ly on file in this application. The application is returned to the examiner
for resumption of prosecution.
J.H.A. Gariepy
Commissioner of Patents
Dated at Hull, Quebec
this 5th day of May, 1978
Agent for Applicant
R.A. Eckersley
214 King St . W.
Toronto, Ont.