Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 22, 2026
Application No. 18/203,843

ELECTRICAL DRIVE UNIT WITH MOTOR HOUSING AND ELECTRICAL MODULE ON ADDITIONAL HOUSING WITH FINS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 31, 2023
Priority
May 31, 2022 — DE 10 2022 113 634.5
Examiner
ALMAWRI, MAGED M
Art Unit
2834
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Rolls-royce Deutschland Ltd. & Co. KG
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allowance Rate
443 granted / 585 resolved
+7.7% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
614
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
66.1%
+26.1% vs TC avg
§102
10.0%
-30.0% vs TC avg
§112
20.0%
-20.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 585 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Claims 1-14 are presented for examination. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/31/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: “ELECTRICAL DRIVE UNIT WITH MOTOR HOUSING AND ELECTRICAL MODULE ON ADDITIONAL HOUSING WITH FINS” distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Inventorship This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a). 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 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 of this title, 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. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikkelsen et al.(US PG Pub US10243425B2) in view of Obel et al (US PG Pub 20150076942 hereinafter “Obel”) or Wettlaufer (US PG Pub 20180301959 hereinafter “Wettlaufer”). Re-claim 1, Mikkelsen discloses an electric drive unit (fig.1) comprising: a motor housing (5) that surrounds an electric motor (6) and has an external side (outside of motor 5), cooling fins (15) positioned on the external side of the motor housing (5), and an electrical module (13) having components to be substantially cooled (inside 13), wherein the electrical module (module inside 13) is disposed in (inside 13) or on an additional housing (housing 13) that adjoins the motor housing (5), wherein additional cooling fins (21) are positioned on an external side of the additional housing (13, annotated Fig.2), wherein the additional cooling fins (21) of the additional housing (13) run in a same direction as the cooling fins (15) of the motor housing (5). Mikkelsen does not explicitly state that the components to be cooled. However, Obel teaches that inside the electrical module (8) the component (80-86,have to be cooled (P[0055], coil is cooled by airflow in fig.11 shown by arrow). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to show that the electric module components of Mikkelsen wherein the components to be cooled as suggested by Obel to optimally cool the device for optimal heat management of the device better design and better reliability of motor (Obel, P[0059]). OR Wettlaufer teaches that inside the electrical module (20) the component (160,170) have to be cooled (P[0060], board is cooled with fins on the inside, see Fig.1, tooth of 120). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to show that the electric module components of Mikkelsen wherein the components to be cooled as suggested by Wettlaufer increase reliability of device, less effort to mount device, utilization of space, high production and better cooling for safer cooling with less visible electronics or components with better device finish (Wettlaufer, P[0060]). PNG media_image1.png 678 758 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 550 733 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 533 724 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 621 501 media_image4.png Greyscale PNG media_image5.png 582 335 media_image5.png Greyscale Re-claim 2, Mikkelsen discloses the electric drive unit of claim 1, wherein the additional cooling fins (21) of the additional housing ()13) are aligned (see fig.2) with the cooling fins of the motor housing (see annotated Fig.2). Re-claims 3, Mikkelsen discloses the electric drive unit of claim 1. Mikkelsen fails to explicitly teach that the components of the electrical module are disposed on at least one circuit board which that is disposed on or integrated in the additional housing. However, Obel teaches the components (80-86, fig.11) of the electrical module (module 8) are disposed on at least one circuit board (10) which that is disposed on or integrated in the additional housing (8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to show that the electric module components of Mikkelsen wherein the components of the electrical module are disposed on at least one circuit board which that is disposed on or integrated in the additional housing as suggested by Obel to optimally cool the device for optimal heat management of the device better design and better reliability of motor, putting components on circuit boards is necessary for better connection (Obel, P[0040,0059]). Re-claim 4, Mikkelsen as modified discloses the electric drive unit of claim 1. Mikkelsen as modified fails to explicitly teach wherein the components of the electrical module are disposed on at least two circuit boards, and wherein the at least two circuit boards are mutually disposed at an angle in or on the additional housing. Wettlaufer teaches that wherein the components of the electrical module (170,160)are disposed on at least two circuit boards (120 each), and wherein the at least two circuit boards (at least 90 degree angle in fig.2) are mutually disposed at an angle in or on the additional housing (an angle inside of 20, around device). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to show that the electric module components of Mikkelsen wherein the components of the electrical module are disposed on at least two circuit boards, and wherein the at least two circuit boards are mutually disposed at an angle in or on the additional housing as suggested by Wettlaufer increase reliability of device, less effort to mount device, utilization of space, high production and better cooling for safer cooling with less visible electronics or components with better device finish (Wettlaufer, P[0060]). Re-claim 5, Mikkelsen as modified discloses the electric drive unit of claim 3. Mikkelsen as modified fails to explicitly teach wherein the components of the electrical module that are to be cooled are disposed on a side of the at least one circuit board that faces the external side of the additional housing. Wettlaufer teaches that wherein the components of the electrical module (170,160) that are to be cooled are disposed on a side of the at least one circuit board (side of the 170 component) that faces the external side of the additional housing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the electric module components and module of Mikkelsen wherein the components of the electrical module that are to be cooled are disposed on a side of the at least one circuit board that faces the external side of the additional housing as suggested by Wettlaufer increase reliability of device, less effort to mount device, utilization of space, high production and better cooling for safer cooling with less visible electronics or components with better device finish (Wettlaufer, P[0060]). Re-claim 6, Mikkelsen as modified discloses the electric drive unit of claim 3. Mikkelsen as modified fails to explicitly teach wherein the motor housing and the additional housing each comprise an at least partially circular housing wall, and wherein the housing wall of the motor housing and the housing wall of the additional housing have a same external radius. Wettlaufer teaches that wherein the motor housing (30) and the additional housing (20) each comprise an at least partially circular housing wall (see annotated fig.1-fig.3), and wherein the housing wall ( see fig.1-fig.3 annotation) of the motor housing and the housing wall of the additional housing have a same external radius (see annotated Fig.1to fig.3, all have circular walls with same radius). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the motor housing and the additional housing of Mikkelsen wherein the motor housing and the additional housing each comprise an at least partially circular housing wall, and wherein the housing wall of the motor housing and the housing wall of the additional housing have a same external radius as suggested by Wettlaufer increase reliability of device, less effort to mount device, utilization of space, high production and better cooling for safer cooling with less visible electronics or components with better device finish (Wettlaufer, P[0060]). Re-claim 7, Mikkelsen as modified discloses the electric drive unit of claim 6. Mikkelsen as modified fails to explicitly teach the components of the electrical module are disposed on at least two circuit boards, wherein the at least two circuit boards are mutually disposed at an angle in the additional housing, and wherein the at least two circuit boards are completely integrated in the housing wall of the additional housing. However, Wettlaufer teaches that wherein the components of the electrical module (160,170) are disposed on at least two circuit boards (120,see fig.1), wherein the at least two circuit boards (120) are mutually disposed at an angle (see Fig.1, an angle with 110) in the additional housing (20), and wherein the at least two circuit boards (120) are completely integrated in the housing wall (inside of 120, see Fig.2) of the additional housing.(see annotated Fig.1 to fig.3, all inside 20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the motor housing and the additional housing of Mikkelsen wherein teach the components of the electrical module are disposed on at least two circuit boards, wherein the at least two circuit boards are mutually disposed at an angle in the additional housing, and wherein the at least two circuit boards are completely integrated in the housing wall of the additional housing as suggested by Wettlaufer increase reliability of device, less effort to mount device, utilization of space, high production and better cooling for safer cooling with less visible electronics or components with better device finish (Wettlaufer, P[0060]). Re-claim 8, Mikkelsen as modified discloses the electric drive unit of claim 6. Mikkelsen as modified fails to explicitly teach wherein the components of the electrical module are disposed on at least one circuit board that is disposed on or integrated in the additional housing, wherein the housing wall of the additional housing configures at least one planar shelf area on which bears the at least one circuit board, and wherein the external side of the additional housing extends radially outside the planar shelf area and the at least one circuit board in a circular manner. However, Wettlaufer teaches that wherein the components of the electrical module (150,160,170) are disposed on at least one circuit board (120) that is disposed on or integrated in the additional housing (20),wherein the housing wall of the additional housing (20) configures at least one planar shelf area (110) on which bears the at least one circuit board (120), and wherein the external side (outside of 20) of the additional housing extends radially outside (around 110) the planar shelf area (110) and the at least one circuit board in a circular manner (inside of 120, see Fig.1, 120 all inside 20, and around 110) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the motor housing and the additional housing of Mikkelsen wherein teach wherein the components of the electrical module are disposed on at least one circuit board that is disposed on or integrated in the additional housing, wherein the housing wall of the additional housing configures at least one planar shelf area on which bears the at least one circuit board, and wherein the external side of the additional housing extends radially outside the planar shelf area and the at least one circuit board in a circular manner as suggested by Wettlaufer increase reliability of device, less effort to mount device, utilization of space, high production and better cooling for safer cooling with less visible electronics or components with better device finish (Wettlaufer, P[0060]). Re-claim 9, Mikkelsen as modified discloses the electric drive unit of claim 1. Mikkelsen as modified fails to explicitly teach wherein electric contacts of the electrical module are disposed on a front end of the additional housing that faces away from the motor housing. However, Wettlaufer teaches that wherein electric contacts (connections of the board, to components, 130, or connections of capacitor or coil 160,170) of the electrical module (100) are disposed on a front end of the additional housing (20) that faces away (away from 110, from 30) from the motor housing (inside of 120, see Fig.1, 120 all inside 20, and around 110, away from 30, beyond 110) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the motor housing and the additional housing of Mikkelsen wherein electric contacts of the electrical module are disposed on a front end of the additional housing that faces away from the motor housing as suggested by Wettlaufer increase reliability of device, less effort to mount device, utilization of space, high production and better cooling for safer cooling with less visible electronics or components with better device finish (Wettlaufer, P[0060]). Re-claim 10, Mikkelsen as modified discloses the electric drive unit of claim 1, wherein the motor housing (5) and the additional housing (13) are composed of a same material (metal alloy, see Claim 5). Re-claim 11, Mikkelsen as modified discloses the electric drive unit of claim 1, wherein the motor housing (5) and the additional housing (13) are composed of a metal or a metal alloy (see claim 5, metal alloy). Re-claim 12, Mikkelsen as modified teaches the electric drive unit of claim 1, wherein the motor housing (5) and the additional housing (13) are screwed to one another (bases 18,19, are screwed fastened via 19). Re-claim 13, Mikkelsen as modified discloses the electric drive unit of claim 1, wherein the motor housing (5) has a longitudinal direction (annotated Fig.2, any of right to left would be longitudinal, or up and down), and wherein the cooling fins (15) of the motor housing (5) and the additional cooling fins (21) of the additional housing run in the longitudinal direction (annotated Fig.2). Re-claim 14, Mikkelsen as modified discloses the electric drive unit of claim 1, wherein the electrical module (13, electronic device) forms an inverter (converter, frequency converter, Col.3, L.38power electronics, electrical connection, Col.1, L.40-50) configured to provide alternating current (asynchronous motor) to the electric motor (col.1, L.62). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in PTO892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAGED M ALMAWRI whose telephone number is (313)446-6565. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher M. Koehler can be reached on 5712723560. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /MAGED M ALMAWRI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 31, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Nov 21, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 29, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 09, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12763630
AIRFOIL FINS FOR THE PASSIVE COOLING OF ELECTRONIC DEVICES
3y 1m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12763616
STATOR CORE OF ROTATING ELECTRIC MACHINE, STATOR OF ROTATING ELECTRIC MACHINE, ROTATING ELECTRIC MACHINE, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING STATOR CORE OF ROTATING ELECTRIC MACHINE, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING ROTATING ELECTRIC MACHINE
2y 10m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12763617
MOTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12763640
STATOR STRUCTURE AND FAN USING SAME
1y 11m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12763620
ROTOR ASSEMBLY, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING ROTOR ASSEMBLY, AND MOTOR INCLUDING ROTOR ASSEMBLY
1y 4m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+20.5%)
2y 9m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 585 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month