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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/12/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the motor housing" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-12 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, deficiency of parent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pal [US 2013/0234545] in view of Sridharan et al. [US 11,025,114].
Claim 1, Pal discloses an electric machine, comprising: a housing [18]; a movable element [30] within the housing; a stator [28] surrounding the movable element within the housing [figures 1 and 4], the stator comprising a plurality of windings with end windings [58] at a first end and a second end [figure 4]; and a stator cooling system, comprising: an inlet [48] through the housing; cooling ducts [44 and 46] connected to the inlet and extending though the plurality of windings [figures 3a and 3b]; and a wind cap [60] at each of the first end and the second end of the end windings, encapsulating each of end windings such that a coolant flows from the inlet to the wind cap through the cooling ducts [figure 4], wherein each wind cap comprises at least one outlet [50].
Pal fails to teach that each wind cap comprises a plurality of outlets.
Sridharan et al. teaches an electric machine [14; figure 3] comprising a movable element [62]; a stator [64] surrounding the movable element [figure 5], and a wind cap [110] at each of a first end and a second end of end windings [130], encapsulating each of end windings such that a coolant flows from an inlet [114] to the wind cap through the cooling ducts [131; figure 5], wherein each wind cap comprises a plurality of outlets [112].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include outlets in each each wind cap of Pal as taught by Sridharan et al. in order to adjust the coolant flow path.
Claim 2, Pal as modified discloses the electric machine of claim 1, wherein Pal further discloses that the cooling ducts [44 and 46] are evenly distributed [figures 3a and 3b].
Claim 3, Pal as modified discloses the electric machine of claim 1, wherein Pal further discloses that the cooling ducts include a circumferential cooling duct [46] and a plurality of longitudinal cooling ducts [44; figures 3a and 3b].
Claim 4, Pal as modified discloses the electric machine of claim 1, wherein Pal further discloses that at least one of the cooling ducts [44 and 46] is at least formed within the stator [walls 40 of stator 38] or as a groove on an outer surface of the stator [figures 3a and 3b].
Claim 5, Pal as modified discloses the electric machine of claim 1, wherein Pal further disclose that the inlet [48] is located at equal distance to the end windings [58] at the first end and the second end [figure 3b].
Claim 6, Pal as modified discloses the electric machine of claim 1, wherein Pal further discloses that the wind cap [60] comprises an annular shell part defining an internal cavity for encapsulating the end winding and a wind part [figure 4].
Claim 7, Pal as modified discloses the electric machine of claim 6, wherein Pal further discloses that the annular shell part comprises a first circumferential surface [one vertical surface of 60 as shown in figure 4], a second circumferential surface [the other vertical surface of 60 as shown in figure 4] and a side surface [the horizontal surface of 60 as shown in figure 4], connecting the first circumferential surface and the second circumferential surface [figure 4].
Claim 8, Pal as modified discloses the electric machine of claim 6, wherein Pal further discloses that the at least one outlet [50] is placed on the annular shell part and/or the wind part of the wind cap [figure 4].
Claim 12, Pal as modified discloses a vehicle comprising the electric machine of claim 1 [paragraph 0001].
Claim 16, Pal as modified discloses the electric machine of claim 1, wherein Sridharan et al. in teaches that each of the plurality of outlets [112] direct the coolant parallel to a longitudinal axis [41] of the stator [figures 3-6].
Claims 13-15 and 17, a method of cooling an electric machine, is obvious in the product structure as outlined by Pal in view of Sridharan et al. in claims 1-8 and 16 above.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pal [US 2013/0234545] in view of Sridharan et al. [US 11,025,114].
Claim 9, Pal in view of Sridharan et al. discloses the electric machine of claim 1 except for the material from which the wind cap is made. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the wind cap from plastic of a metal material and a coating, 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.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pal [US 2013/0234545] in view of Sridharan et al. [US 11,025,114] and further in view of Konishi et al. [2006/0119196].
Claim 10, Pal as modified disclose the electric machine of claim 1, with the exception of a plate is placed between the wind cap and the stator [5].
Konishi et al. teaches an electrical machine wherein a plate [8] is placed between the wind cap [6] and the stator [5; figure 6].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the plate of Konishi et al. in the electric machine of Pal as modified in order to electrically isolate the core form the wind cap [Konishi et al. paragraph 0030; the plat is made from electrically insulating material.
Claim 11, Pal as modified discloses the electric machine of claim 10, wherein Konishi et al. teaches a seal [sealant; paragraph 0038] is placed between the plate [8] and the wind cap [6].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/31/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sridharan et al. [US 11,025,114] in combination of Pal [US 2013/0234545] as described in detail above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bernard Rojas whose telephone number is (571)272-1998. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. thru Fri. 7:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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 S Ismail can be reached at (571) 272-3985. 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.
/BERNARD ROJAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837