DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the newly added claim limitations to claims 1 and 20 directed to fluid passing between the tolerance ring and the housing of the stator. These limitations were previously present in claims 13 and 17-18.
This argument is not persuasive because the housing of Knappenberger comprises two housing portions (3, 5) with the tolerance ring (7) having fluid passing between the tolerance ring and the housing, as discussed on page 6 of the arguments by the applicant. This structure meets the claim limitations, contrary to the arguments made by the applicant.
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 1-5, 7-10, 12-13, and 15-22 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.
In re claims 1 and 12-13, it is not clear if a housing of a stator of an electric drive motor assembly in claim 1 is the same as the housing of the electric drive motor assembly in claims 12-13. The housing will be interpreted as the same housing. Furthermore, the term “a housing of a stator” in claim 1 is considered to be new matter, because support for this new limitation cannot be found in the originally filed disclosure. Only a housing of an electric drive motor assembly is supported. The claim language appears to include more than one kind of housing.
In re claim 13, the claim limitations appear to be in conflict with claim 1 limitations because claim 13 appears to include additional, and mutually exclusive configurations of the cooling features that are not present in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
In re claim 20, it is not clear if the housing of the stator in the newly added claim limitations is the same as a housing that was previously present in claim 20. The newly added housing limitation appears to be a new matter limitation because there is no support for a housing of a stator in the originally filed disclosure. Only a housing of an electric drive motor assembly is supported.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 12-13, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Knappenberger (US 9331549).
In re claim 1, Knappenberger, in figures 1-9, discloses a tolerance ring, comprising: an annular ring-shaped substrate (7) formed from a metallic material; a plurality of projections (substrate 7 forms the projections protruding in the radial direction) protruding radially inward from an inner surface of the substrate or radially outward from an outer surface of the substrate (as clearly seen in figures 3 and 9b); and one or more cooling features formed in the substrate (portions of the substrate 7 guiding the fluid form the cooling features), the one or more cooling features comprising: a plurality of flat banded portions (any portions extending parallel to housing 3 and 5) and one or more cooling channels extending across a width of the substrate or a plurality of apertures (11), wherein the one or more cooling features are configured to allow fluid to pass between the tolerance ring and a housing of a stator (15) of an electric drive motor assembly (fluid flow in the claimed location is discussed in the abstract and throughout the specification).
In re claim 12, Knappenberger, in figures 1-9, discloses that the tolerance ring is configured to be disposed within the housing of an electric drive motor assembly and retain or secure the drive motor stator of the electric drive motor assembly within the housing (as shown in figures 4-9a).
In re claim 13, Knappenberger, in figures 1-9, discloses that the one or more cooling features are configured to allow the fluid to pass between the tolerance ring and a housing of the electric drive motor assembly, between the tolerance ring and a stator of the electric drive motor assembly, or a combination thereof (this functionality is inherent to the structure shown in the figures) by the plurality of apertures (apertures through which the coolant flows, as shown in the figures of Knappenberger).
In re claims 15-16, Knappenberger, in figures 1-9, discloses that the flat banded portions substantially abut the housing/stator of the electric drive motor assembly to allow the fluid to pass between the flat banded portions of the tolerance ring and the stator/housing of the electric drive motor assembly (as shown in figures 3-9).
In re claims 17-18, Knappenberger, in figures 1-9, discloses that the one or more cooling features comprises a plurality of cooling channels disposed about the tolerance ring, and wherein the cooling channels are configured to allow the fluid to pass between the flat banded portions of the tolerance ring and the housing, the stator, or a combination thereof of the electric drive motor assembly (as clearly shown in the figures) by a plurality of apertures (the cooling channels form the apertures at the ends of the cooling channels where the coolant enters and leaves the channel).
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) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knappenberger (US 9331549).
In re claim 8, Knappenberger, in figures 1-9, discloses that the plurality of projections comprises a plurality of waves grouped into a plurality of groups of waves (any number of waves comprises a group of waves), wherein the stator comprises a plurality of stator teeth (15). Knappenberger does not disclose the claimed number of teeth or projections. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have used the claimed number/multiple of projections, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
In re claim 9, Knappenberger, in figures 1-9, discloses that each group of the plurality of waves are divided circumferentially by at least one of the one or more cooling features (the cooling features are clearly distributed around the circumference and thus divide any number of waves/groups that are between the cooling features, as shown in figures 3 and 9b).
Claim(s) 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knappenberger (US 9331549) in view of Kao et al. (US 8629587).
In re claim 19, Knappenberger teaches the claimed invention except for the raised portions. Kao however teaches that positioning raised portions (121) in a substrate is known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned raised portions as taught by Kao in the device of Knappenberger to improve heat transfer efficiency.
In re claim 20, Knappenberger discloses an electric drive motor assembly, comprising: an outer component comprising a housing (5); an inner component comprising a stator (3); and at least one tolerance ring (7) disposed within the housing and configured to retain or secure the stator within the housing, wherein the at least one tolerance ring comprises: an annular ring-shaped substrate formed from a metallic material; and one or more cooling features formed in the substrate (portions of the substrate 7 guiding the fluid form the cooling features), the one or more cooling features comprising a plurality of flat banded portions (any portions extending parallel to housing 3) and one or more cooling channels extending across a width of the substrate or a plurality of apertures (11), wherein the one or more cooling features are configured to allow fluid to pass between the tolerance ring and a housing of a stator (15) of an electric drive motor assembly (fluid flow in the claimed location is discussed in the abstract and throughout the specification). Knappenberger does not teach the plurality of projections. Kao however, teaches that positioning a plurality of projections (121) in a substrate as claimed is known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned projections as taught by Kao in the device of Knappenberger to improve heat transfer efficiency.
In re claim 21, Knappenberger discloses that the at least one tolerance ring comprises a substantially constant diameter (as seen in the figures).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A list of pertinent prior art is attached in form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Talpalatski whose telephone number is (571)270-3908. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM - 6 PM PT.
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, Shawki Ismail can be reached at 5712723985. 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.
/Alexander Talpalatski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights