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 .
This Office Action is in response to papers filed on 5/18/2026. Amendments made to the claims and the Applicant's remarks have been entered and considered.
Claim 15 has been amended. Claims 1-14, 29, 30 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 15, the Applicant argued that Seidner to be completely silent about the pressure of the liquid at the inlet 49. At no point does Seidner suggest that the liquid could enter the chamber 22 as an accelerated jet as claimed. It is more common that the cooling fluid flows at a rather low pressure and it is uncommon to form an inlet as a nozzle designed to provide an accelerated jet. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand from Seidner that at the inlet 49 an accelerated jet could be formed. This is also backed by the fact that Seidner uses the term "inlet" because those of ordinary skill in the art would not use this term if the inlet were in fact a nozzle capable of creating the claimed accelerated jet. Applicant respectfully notes that the Examiner has simply copied the claim language and inserted the reference numeral "49" without providing any sort of explanation or technical reasoning as to how the inlet 49 is capable of creating the claimed accelerated jet. Absent such an explanation or technical reasoning, Applicant believes that the Examiner has engaged in speculation and conjecture by merely stating that the inlet is a nozzle capable of creating the claimed accelerated jet. The Examiner has not pointed to any factual evidence in Seidner to support this position. On the contrary, Applicant finds various portions of Seidner to refute the Examiner's technical interpretation. For example, page 2, lines 21-25 states that the coil heads or ends 18 or 19 of the stator are placed in the spaces 22 and 23 which are filled with cooling liquid so that they are cooled in a very effective manner. Page 2, lines 1-14, states that the inner space annular chambers 22 and 23 are liquid filled and that the bottom of the front chamber 22 is provided with an inlet 49 to supply fresh cooling liquid. Page 2, lines 90-94 simply states that the course of the cooling medium in the stator is inlet 49, space 22, axial openings of the laminations, space 23, passage 50, space 51, gaps 33, outlet 52. Considering these portions of Seidner, Applicant understands that the spaces 22 and 23 are filled with the liquid cooling medium via the inlet 49, and that it would not seem to be technically feasible to produce an accelerated jet to strike the coil heads or ends 18 when the space 22 is "liquid-filled." Given the stated course of the cooling medium taken in proper context with space 22 being "liquid-filled," the role of the inlet 49 appears to simply be a point of entry for the liquid cooling medium to fill the spaces 22 and 23. Seidner simply provides no description, express or inherent, to support the Examiner's unsupported statement that the inlet 49 actually produces the claimed "said nozzle designed and oriented and directed at a respective one of the winding overhangs of the winding system in such a way that a part of the winding system is struck by the accelerated jet from the nozzle".
This argument is not persuasive because a definition of a nozzle is “a short tube with a taper or constriction used to speed up or direct a flow of fluid” (Merriam Webster Dictionary). Seidner (US 1,448,700 A) shows FIG. 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
562
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A wider inlet 49 passing liquid through a narrower constriction K into the space 22 including the coil end 18, the flow of liquid indicated by arrows toward the coil end 18. The constriction K meets the definition of a nozzle. Seidner describes a flow of liquid: “[t]he bottom of the front chamber 22 is provided with an inlet 49 to supply fresh cooling liquid, and the top of the middle chamber is provided with an outlet 52 for the escape of the heated medium” (page 4:6 to 11) and “[t]he course of the cooling medium through the machine is…inlet 49, space 22, axial openings of the laminations, space 23, passage 50, space 51, gaps 33, outlet 52” (page 4:90 to 95). The liquid is moving and therefore accelerated. One of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the fluid is accelerated under pressure provided by a pump not shown to force the fluid through the machine as described from inlet 49 to outlet 52. Seidner therefore shows “a nozzle 49 through which the cooling medium flows during operation, such that the cooling medium flows out as an accelerated jet downstream of the nozzle 49”.
The Applicant also disagrees with the Examiner's statement that "wherein the cooling medium is combined in the axial gap 33 from various flow paths guided in a parallel fashion (flow paths in slots 38)," because the Examiner has not provided any explanation consistent with the construction of Seidner to support this interpretation. Applicant respectfully notes again that the course of the cooling medium is inlet 49, space 22, axial openings of the laminations, space 23, passage 50, space 51, gaps 33, outlet 52. As one can plainly see in Figure 1 of Seidner, the flow of the coolant in space 51, designated by the arrows, starts at a single passage 50 and then splits into numerous and separate flow paths that each correspond to the gaps 33. The gaps 33 clearly do not combine any flow paths, as the only place where the flow paths are combined is in the space below the outlet 52. This space below the outlet 52 is simply not the claimed axial gap.
This argument is not persuasive because the description is: “[t]he course of the cooling medium through the machine is…inlet 49, space 22, axial openings of the laminations, space 23, passage 50, space 51, gaps 33, outlet 52” (page 4:90 to 95). The fluid flow splits into multiple parallel axial openings 38 in the laminations before being mixed and combined in the spaces 23 and 51 and then reaching a single gap 33 (page 4, col. 1, lines 33-46 and FIG. 8).
Regarding the rejection of claims 19-24, 27, 28 under 35 U.S.C. 103, the Applicant argued that the Examiner readily acknowledges that Seidner fails to describe the features of clam 19 and turns to Lenz Figure 6 and the Examiner annotated nozzles N1 and N2. Applicant respectfully notes that the system of Seidner relies upon the rotor and stator carrying its own cooling liquid individually so that the liquid cooling of one member cannot strike on the other member, so that the rotating as well as the stationary member each are formed as an individual tightly closed casing which is filled with the liquid cooling medium (see page 1, lines 38-46 and 108-112). Furthermore, page 2, lines 90-97 describe separate flow paths for the stator and the rotor, such being consistent with the noted portions of page 1. Turning to Lenz, one clearly sees that the Examiner annotated nozzles N1 and N2 supply the liquid refrigerant to both the stator and rotor because the stator and rotor are not formed as separate members with their own liquid cooling (as in the case of Seidner), but instead share the same liquid refrigerant. Clearly, in order to modify Seidner with the teachings of Lenz, the system of Seidner would have to be completely redesigned in order to allow for the liquid refrigerant of Lenz to supply cooling for both the rotor and the stator. This would lead to the destruction of Seidner's rotating as well as the stationary member each being formed as an individual tightly closed casing which is filled with the liquid cooling medium. In other words, the Examiner's proposed combination of Seidner and Lenz would render Seidner unsuitable for its intended function of the rotating as well as the stationary member each being formed as an individual tightly closed casing which is filled with the liquid cooling medium, which results in a flawed obviousness rejection.
This argument is not persuasive because the modification of Seidner in view of Lenz does not require a complete redesign, rather only the addition of a further said nozzle N2, said first and second collecting spaces 22,23 arranged in such a way that upstream of the first and second collecting spaces 22,23 a first division (at C see Lenz FIG. 6 below) into at least two flow paths of the cooling medium, which are guided parallel to one another, is provided, with the first and second collecting spaces 22,23 and the nozzles N1,N2 directed at winding overhangs 18,19 being situated in the flow paths guided in a parallel fashion. The rejection does not propose a modification of the tube 3 or the rotor 26 of Seidner.
In this context, the Examiner's attention is directed in particular to MPEP 2143.01 V. THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION CANNOT RENDER THE PRIOR ART UNSATISFACTORY FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSE and VI. THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION CANNOT CHANGE THE PRINCIPLE OF OPERATION OF A REFERENCE.
The proposed combination also has no reasonable expectation of success because of the noted differences in the rotor and stator structures. See also MPEP 2143.02 I. OBVIOUSNESS REQUIRES A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF SUCCESS.
These arguments are not persuasive because, as noted above, the rejection does not propose a modification of the tube 3 or the rotor 26 of Seidner. Cooling of the machine of Seidner would still occur such that the principle of operation of Seidner would be the same and Seidner would be satisfactory for its intended purpose. Lenz shows a reasonable expectation of success of such a cooling system to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The Applicant also argued, regarding claim 31, the Examiner has relied upon Akihisa for teaching a canned motor pump in which both the stator and rotor are each hermetically enclosed by their respective cans. However, the teachings of Akihisa applied to Seidner fail to account for the above noted shortcomings Seidner pertaining to the underlying independent claim 15, and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is thus respectfully requested.
This argument is not persuasive because the prior arguments regarding claim 15 were shown to be not persuasive above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15-18, 25-26, 32, 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Seidner (US 1,448,700 A).
As to claim 15, Seidner shows (FIG. 1, 8):
PNG
media_image2.png
610
949
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A stator S of an electromechanical transducer configured for interaction with a rotor 26, the stator S extending along a longitudinal axis Ax and comprising:
a winding system 34,35 comprising winding overhangs 18, 19;
a cooling system designed for through-flow of a cooling medium and comprising a nozzle 49 through which the cooling medium flows during operation, such that the cooling medium flows out as an accelerated jet downstream of the nozzle 49, said nozzle 49 designed and oriented and directed at a respective one of the winding overhangs 18 of the winding system 34,35 in such a way that a part of the winding system 34,35 is struck by the accelerated jet from the nozzle 49;
a core 13 comprising a magnetically permeable body designed to include at least a first body 13A and a second body 13B which are arranged axially next to one another, with the first body 13A being arranged in spaced-apart relationship from the second body 13B to define an axial gap 33 therebetween, said core 13 including cutouts 38 for at least partial arrangement of winding sections of the winding system 34,35; and
a can 3 separating the stator S from the rotor 26, such that the cooling system for the stator S can be operated independently of the rotor 26.
wherein the cooling medium is combined in the axial gap 33 from various flow paths guided in a parallel fashion (flow paths in slots 38), and
wherein the cooling medium is guided away at the winding overhangs 18, 19 and guided along the windings sections 34,35 through the cutouts 38 (turbogenerator page 1, line 47-49, description from page 1, line 98 to page 2, line 46; iron core page 2 line 33-37; slots 38; tube 3 tightly closes stator S and casing against the rotor 26 page 1 line 98-112).
As to claim 16/15, Seidner further shows (FIG. 1, 8) wherein the cooling system is designed in such a way that the cooling medium is guided along a closed circuit (cooling medium is recirculated page 2, lines 90-99).
As to claim 17/15, Seidner further shows (FIG. 1, 8) wherein axially next to the core 13 on a first side a first collecting space 22 is provided upstream of the core 13 for the cooling medium, and/or wherein axially next to the core 13 on a second side a second collecting space 23 is provided upstream of the core 13 for the cooling medium.
As to claim 18/17/15, Seidner further shows (FIG. 1, 8) wherein at least one of the winding overhangs 18, 19 is at least partly arranged in one of the first and second collecting spaces 22, 23, said nozzle 49 being oriented in such a way that the accelerated jet is directed at the respective one of the winding overhangs 18, 19 at least with regard to an axial-radial orientation.
As to claim 25/15, Seidner further shows (FIG. 1, 8) wherein the cooling system comprises channels 38 arranged in the body 13 of the core 13 and configured in such a way that the cooling medium flows through the body 13 in at least in one portion in an axial direction Ax, said cooling system designed to divide the cooling medium between at least two flow paths 38 guided parallel to one another along the core 13.
As to claim 26/25/15, Seidner further shows (FIG. 1, 8) wherein at least some of the winding sections 34,35 of the winding system 34,35 extend axially through the core 13 together with adjacent surfaces of the cutouts 38 so as to define the channels 38 having parallel throughflow in the cooling system in the body 13, such that the cooling medium flows along the respective winding sections 34,35 (liquid in direct contact with windings 34,35 page 2, lines 33-40).
As to claim 32/15, Seidner further shows (FIG. 1, 8) wherein the cooling system of the stator S is closed relative to the rotor 26 (tube 3 tightly closes stator S and casing against the rotor 26 page 1 line 98-112).
As to claim 33/15, Seidner further shows (FIG. 1, 8) wherein the can 3 has a cylindrical shape.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 19-24, 27, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidner (US 1,448,700 A) in view of Lenz (US 3,675,056 A).
As to claim 19/18/17/15, Seidner was discussed above with respect to claim 18 except for the cooling system comprises a further said nozzle, said first and second collecting spaces arranged in such a way that upstream of the first and second collecting spaces a first division into at least two flow paths of the cooling medium, which are guided parallel to one another, is provided, with the first and second collecting spaces and the nozzles directed at winding overhangs being situated in the flow paths guided in a parallel fashion.
Lenz shows (FIG. 6):
PNG
media_image3.png
490
583
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the cooling system comprises a further said nozzle N2, said first and second collecting spaces S1,S2 arranged in such a way that upstream of the first and second collecting spaces S1,S2 a first division into at least two flow paths of the cooling medium, which are guided parallel to one another, is provided, with the first and second collecting spaces S1,S2 and the nozzles N1,N2 directed at winding overhangs E being situated in the flow paths guided in a parallel fashion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electromechanical transducer of Seidner to have the cooling system comprises a further said nozzle N2, said first and second collecting spaces 22,23 arranged in such a way that upstream of the first and second collecting spaces 22,23 a first division into at least two flow paths of the cooling medium, which are guided parallel to one another, is provided, with the first and second collecting spaces 22,23 and the nozzles N1,N2 directed at winding overhangs 18,19 being situated in the flow paths guided in a parallel fashion as taught by Lenz, for the advantageous benefit of optimized cooling of an elongated stator S as taught by Lenz (col.1:4-10; col.5:43-60).
As to claim 20/17/15, Seidner was discussed above with respect to claim 17 except for wherein the cooling system at a point leading into the first and second collecting spaces comprises an inlet channel which extends along a circumferential direction over at least one part of a circumference and which includes outflow openings from the inlet channel into the first and second collecting spaces, with the outflow openings designed in such a way that the cooling medium flows into the first and second collecting spaces in a manner distributed uniformly over the circumference.
Lenz shows (FIG. 6 above) wherein the cooling system at a point leading into the first and second collecting spaces S1,S2 comprises an inlet channel C which extends along a circumferential direction over at least one part of a circumference and which includes outflow openings 68B from the inlet channel into the first and second collecting spaces S1,S2, with the outflow openings 68B designed in such a way that the cooling medium flows into the first and second collecting spaces S1,S2 in a manner distributed uniformly over the circumference (col.5:43-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electromechanical transducer of Seidner in view of Lenz to have wherein the cooling system at a point leading into the first and second collecting spaces 22,23 comprises an inlet channel which extends along a circumferential direction over at least one part of a circumference and which includes outflow openings 68B from the inlet channel into the first and second collecting spaces 22,23, with the outflow openings 68B designed in such a way that the cooling medium flows into the first and second collecting spaces 22,23 in a manner distributed uniformly over the circumference as taught by Lenz, for the advantageous benefit of optimized cooling of the stator S as taught by Lenz (col.1:4-10; col.5:43-60).
As to claim 21/20/17/15, Seidner in view of Lenz was discussed above with respect to claim 20 except for wherein at least some of the outflow openings are designed as the nozzles into which the cooling medium flows and flows out in a manner directed at a part of the winding system as accelerated jet.
Lenz shows (FIG. 6 above) wherein at least some of the outflow openings 68B are designed as the nozzles N1,N2 into which the cooling medium flows and flows out in a manner directed at a part of the winding system 22 as accelerated jet (col.5:43-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electromechanical transducer of Seidner in view of Lenz to have wherein at least some of the outflow openings are designed as the nozzles into which the cooling medium flows and flows out in a manner directed at a part of the winding system as accelerated jet as taught by Lenz, for the advantageous benefit of optimized cooling of the stator S as taught by Lenz (col.1:4-10; col.5:43-60).
As to claim 22/20/17/15, Seidner in view of Lenz was discussed above with respect to claim 20 except for wherein the inlet channel is designed to extend over the entire circumference.
Lenz shows (FIG. 6 above) wherein the inlet channel C is designed to extend over the entire circumference (refrigerant is splashed over all the end turns E col.5:43-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electromechanical transducer of Seidner in view of Lenz to have wherein the inlet channel is designed to extend over the entire circumference as taught by Lenz, for the advantageous benefit of optimized cooling of the stator S as taught by Lenz (col.1:4-10; col.5:43-60).
As to claim 23/20/17/15, Seidner in view of Lenz was discussed above with respect to claim 20 and Seidner further shows (FIG. 1 above) wherein the outflow opening is designed as a nozzle in a wall of the inlet channel (inlet 49 opens to the interior through a hole in the shield 1 page 1 line 98-112; page 2 lines 1-14).
Seidner does not show multiple outflow openings are designed as nozzles.
Lenz shows (FIG. 6 above) multiple outflow openings 68B are designed as nozzles N1,N2 (col.5:43-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electromechanical transducer of Seidner in view of Lenz to have multiple outflow openings 68B are designed as nozzles N1,N2 as taught by Lenz, for the advantageous benefit of optimized cooling of the stator S as taught by Lenz (col.1:4-10; col.5:43-60).
As to claim 24/23/20/17/15, Seidner in view of Lenz was discussed above with respect to claim 23 and Seidner further shows (FIG. 1 above) wherein the wall is configured as a perforated lamination (inlet 49 opens to the interior through a hole in the shield 1 page 1 line 98-112; page 2 lines 1-14).
As to claims 27/15 and 28/15, Seidner does not show that the cooling system is filled with the cooling medium in such a way that relative to a surroundings a reduced pressure of at least 0.1 bar or 0.3 bar prevails in the cooling system during operation.
However, Lenz recognizes that pressure is a result-effective variable for the cooling system. Lenz states that “In operation, a liquid refrigerant, for example, REFRIGERANT 11 is passed from condensor 52 and enters motor 10 through valved conduit 54 at a pressure to maintain annular reservoir 44 at a refrigerant elevation in excess of the elevation of topmost aperture 50A in manifold 42” (col.3:64-70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the cooling system is filled with the cooling medium in such a way that relative to a surroundings a reduced pressure of at least 0.1 bar or 0.3 bar prevails in the cooling system during operation to result in, and for the advantageous benefit of, to have the cooling medium distribute itself according to a pressure differential and available area of diverse axial flow channels 38 (col.4:1-7).
The normal tendency of a scientist is to improve upon what is generally known to determine the optimum combination, (see In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969)). Therefore, the modification would have been considered a mere optimization of a result-effective variable, the pressure of the cooling system. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidner (US 1,448,700 A) in view of Akihisa et al. (US 5,397,220, hereinafter Akihisa).
As to claim 31/15, Seidner was discussed above with respect to claim 15 except for wherein the can hermetically separates the stator from the rotor.
Akihisa describes the can 43 hermetically separates the stator 42 from the rotor (FIG. 3 col.1:7-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the can 3 of Seidner to have the can 3 hermetically separates the stator S from the rotor 26 as taught by Akihisa, for the advantageous benefit of the transducer may handle a corrosive or explosive liquid as taught by Akihisa (col.1:28-33).
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 ROBERT E MATES whose telephone number is (571)270-5293. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 12:00pm to 8pm.
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, TULSIDAS PATEL can be reached at (571)272-2098. 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.
/ROBERT E MATES/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights