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 11/25/2025. 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. Claims 31-33 are newly added.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/25/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 15, the Applicant argued that In Lenz, there is nothing separating the stator 14 from the rotor 12, so there is a single cooling system using the orifices 68B situated at opposite ends of the motor in substantially confronting attitudes with axial passage 67B of rotor 12B. Also, a portion of the refrigerant entering the orifices 68B also is splashed over the stator end turns. Clearly, in Lenz the cooling system for the stator cannot be operated independently of the rotor, and in fact, if the stator were to be separated from the rotor by the can, as is now claimed, the stator would not be cooled at all due to the locations of the orifices 68B. Furthermore, as can be clearly seen from Figure 6, the presence of the can to separate the stator from the rotor, as is now claimed, would preclude the flow to the exhaust orifice 80, which would seem to render the system of Lenz inoperable for its intended purpose of cooling the motor.
This argument is not persuasive because independent claim 15 is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by newly applied Seidner (US 1,448,700 A) which shows a tube 3 separating the stator from the rotor and a cooling system page 1 line 98-112.
The Applicant also argued that, regarding new claims 31-33, features directed to details of the can and the cooling system have been added which are also not present in or suggested by Lenz.
Regarding claim 31, this argument is not persuasive because newly applied Akihisa et al. (US 5,397,220) describes the can 43 hermetically separates the stator from the rotor as shown in FIG. 3 and described in col.1:7-19.
Regarding claims 32 and 33, this argument is not persuasive because newly applied Seidner further shows (FIG. 1, 8) the tube 3 tightly closes stator and casing against the rotor page 1 line 98-112 and the tube 3 has a cylindrical shape.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 15, line 22, “windings sections” should be -- winding sections --. Appropriate correction is required.
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_image1.png
610
949
media_image1.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_image2.png
490
583
media_image2.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
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