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 responsive to the Applicant's communication filed December 16, 2025. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed: claims 1-20 were previously pending; no claims were cancelled and no claims were added by amendment; and thus, claims 1-20 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 18, 2025 have been fully considered.
The Applicant's first point (page 7-12 of Remarks) amends claim 1 to more clearly define embodiments of the claimed invention. The Applicant goes on to argue that every feature recited in newly amended claim 1 is not taught by GROSSMANN. The Examiner agrees with the Applicants logic, for example, GROSSMANN does not teach, “a fan is coupled to the heat exchanger and to a coolant shaft.” Since all features of claim 1 in the present invention are not taught by a single piece of prior art, a 102 rejection cannot be held, therefore the current 102 rejection is removed. However, the amendment necessitates new grounds of rejection, therefor, a new grounds of rejection is provided later in the office action.
The Applicant's second point (page 13-17 of Remarks) argues that no prima facie case of obviousness has been provided for claim 1, therefor no 103 rejection can be applied. This is true because a prima facie case for obviousness was not necessary until the amendment submitted on November 18, 2025. The amendment submitted on November 18, 2025 necessitates new grounds of rejection, therefor, a prima facie case of obviousness for claim 1 is provided later in the office action.
The Applicant goes on to anticipate that no prima facie case of obvious for claim 1 could be provided by GROSSMANN, IKONEN, or SPIERLING because no person of ordinary skill in the art could have found a discernable teaching nor motivation to modify the prior art to cover claim 1. In response to Applicant's argument that there is no suggestion to combine the references, the Examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily combined and that there must be some reason why one skilled in the art would be motivated to make the proposed combination of primary and secondary references. In re Nomiya, 184 USPQ 607 (CCPA 1975). However,' there is no requirement that a motivation to make the modification be expressly articulated. The test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken' as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art'. In re McLaughlin, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). references are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific disclosures. In i.e Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA)1969. In this case, the prima facie case is provided in the office action below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the a fluid flow surface must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: Air Cooling Apparatus for Electrical Motor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 was amended to include the article, “a fluid flow surface” this article is found by the examiner to have new material not previously presented in the application. The present application has been found to contain sources of, “fluid flowing continuously” on various elements[pg 10; 17-27], but no sources showing the structural limitation of a “a fluid flow surface.” Therefor the limitations, “a fluid flow surface is arranged to guide a continuous flow of a fluid,” is new matter and should be removed or canceled.
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.
Claim 1 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 winding head " in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-6 and 9- 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GROSSMANN (EP 1653592 A2)in view of SPIERLING (US 20200313499 A1).
Regarding claim 1, GROSSMANN teaches:
An electrical machine[abstract], having a stator(Fig 1; 22) comprising a winding overhang(Fig 1; 40/42),
a rotor (Fig 1; 10) arranged rotatably about a rotor axis (Fig 1; 12)in the stator(Fig 1; 22),
and a heat exchanger(Fig 4; 80)(fins 80 work as a heat exchanger with cooling air flow 120 by removing heat[0074]),
the heat exchanger (Fig 4; 80)and to a coolant shaft(Fig 4; 120/130) (Heat exchanger 80 is fluidically connected via coolant shaft 120/130 to winding overhang 40/42 [0075-0077]) arranged radially outside the winding head(Fig 1; 40/42)(arranged radially shown in Fig 4), whereby the heat exchanger(Fig 4; 80) is fluidically connected to the winding overhang(Fig 1; 40/42) via the coolant shaft(Heat exchanger 80 is fluidically connected via coolant shaft 120/130 to winding overhang 40/42 [0075-0077]), which includes a fluid flow surface (Fig 4; 64) is arranged to guide a continuous flow of a fluid radially outside the winding overhang(Fig 1; 40/42) to run at least partially approximately along a circumferential direction(Fig 4; 78) around the winding head(Fig 1; 40/42) so that the winding overhang (Fig 1; 40/42)can be is cooled by the continuous flow of the fluid over the heat exchanger (Fig 4; 80)and the winding overhang(Fig 1; 40/42), and
multiple guiding elements(Fig 4; 50) being arranged in a distributed manner along a circumferential direction(Fig 4; 78) in the coolant shaft(Fig 4; 120/130) in order to redirect the continuous flow of the fluid along the fluid flow surface (Fig 4; 64) at least partially into a radial flow towards the winding overhang(Fig 4; 40/42) and to distribute the flow to multiple regions of the winding overhang(Fig 4; 40/42).
PNG
media_image1.png
475
649
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
673
499
media_image2.png
Greyscale
GROSSMANN does not teach: a fan is coupled to the heat exchanger and to a coolant shaft.
SPIERLING teaches:
a fan (Fig 3; 138)is coupled to the heat exchanger(Fig 2; 132) and to a coolant shaft(Fig
3; 123).
PNG
media_image3.png
338
397
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
346
361
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify GROSSMANN by using the fan with which air is used to cool the winding overhangs from the heat exchanger via the coolant shaft taught by SPIERLING in order to be able to cool the stack and end windings without introducing liquid coolant into a stator/rotor gap, thus eliminating friction on the rotor from liquid cooling [0009 SPIERLING].
Additionally, the Applicant should note that GROSSMANN discloses the claimed invention except for a fan. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add a fan to the prior art since it was known in the art that fans are a common method to distribute cooling fluid.
Regarding claim 2, GROSSMANN, in view of SPIERLING, teaches the electrical machine according to claim 1:
wherein the guiding elements(Fig 4; 50) are roughly radially oriented(shown in Fig 4).
Regarding claim 3, GROSSMANN, in view of SPIERLING, teaches the electrical machine according to claim 1:
wherein the outer surface(Fig 1; 132’) is at least partially embodied roughly as a surface of revolution with the rotor axis(Fig 1; 12).
Regarding claim 4, GROSSMANN, in view of SPIERLING, teaches the electrical machine according to claim 1:
wherein the guiding elements (Fig 4; 50) are arranged with an approximately equal spacing from the rotor axis(Fig 1; 12).
Regarding claim 5, GROSSMANN, in view of SPIERLING, teaches the electrical machine according to claim 1:
wherein 10 to 100, guiding elements (Fig 2; 50) are arranged in a distributed manner over a circumference(Fig 2 shows around 90 guild elements distributed over a circumference).
PNG
media_image5.png
476
578
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, GROSSMANN, in view of SPIERLING, teaches the electrical machine according to claim 1:
wherein the guiding elements (Fig 4; 50) are arranged with a spacing from the outer surface(Fig 1; 132’) (Fig 1 shows a space between winding overhang 42 and outer surface 132’, guiding elements 50 is located on winding overhang 42).
Regarding claim 9, GROSSMANN, in view of SPIERLING, teaches the electrical machine according to claim 1:
wherein the guiding elements (Fig 4; 50) are embodied to be plate-shaped(Fig 4 shows a clear plate like shape of guide 50).
Regarding claim 10, GROSSMANN, in view of SPIERLING, teaches the electrical machine according to claim 1:
wherein at least some guiding elements (Fig 4; 50) comprise a rounded edge(Fig 4 shows rounded edges), at an end that delimits a clear flow cross section between the outer surface and the guide elements(Rounds are shown on both sides of the guiding element 50 of Fig 4).
Regarding claim 11, GROSSMANN, in view of SPIERLING, teaches the electrical machine according to claim 1:
wherein the guiding elements (Fig 4; 50) are formed by elements connected in a fixed manner to the winding overhang(Fig 4; 40/42).
In regards to claim 12, GROSSMANN, in view of SPIERLING, teaches the electrical machine according to claim 1.
GROSSMANN does not teach:
wherein a fan, is provided with which a flow of a fluid, can be produced in the machine from the heat exchanger through the coolant shaft to the winding overhang and back to the heat exchanger.
SPIERLING teaches:
wherein a fan(Fig 3; 138), is provided with which a flow of a fluid, can be produced in the machine from the heat exchanger (Fig 2; 132)through the coolant shaft (Fig 3; 123)to the winding overhang (Fig 2; 122/124)and back to the heat exchanger(Fig 3; 132)(the circuit of cooling air to shown in Fig 2 and described in paragraph [0018-0019]).
PNG
media_image3.png
338
397
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
346
361
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify GROSSMANN by using the fan with which air is used to cool the winding overhangs from the heat exchanger taught by SPIERLING in order to be able to cool the stack and end windings without introducing liquid coolant into a stator/rotor gap, thus eliminating friction on the rotor from liquid cooling [0009 SPIERLING].
In regards to claim 13, GROSSMANN, in view of SPIERLING teaches the electrical machine according to claim 12.
GROSSMANN does not teach:
wherein the stator comprises two winding overhangs and each winding overhang is connected to the fan and the heat exchanger via a separate flow path.
SPIERLING teaches:
wherein the stator (Fig 1; 104)comprises two winding overhangs (Fig 1; 122/124)and each winding overhang is connected to the fan (Fig 3; 138)and the heat exchanger(Fig 2; 132) via a separate flow path[0018-0019](Fig 1 shows two winging overhangs 122/124 on axial ends they must require separate flow paths in order to reach both locations).
PNG
media_image6.png
433
507
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, GROSSMANN, in view of SPIERLING, teaches the electrical machine according to claim 1:
wherein separate flow paths are provided for an upper region (Fig 5; L1)of the winding overhang and a lower region (Fig 5; L2)of the winding overhang(Fig 5 shows the flow paths separating into two separate spaces covering an upper and lower region).
PNG
media_image7.png
646
476
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, GROSSMANN, in view of SPIERLING, teaches the electrical machine according to claim 1:
being a generator[abstract].
Regarding claim 16, GROSSMANN, in view of SPIERLING, teaches the electrical machine according to claim 1:
wherein the outer surface (Fig 1; 132’)is at least partially embodied roughly as an outer cylinder surface or outer cone surface(Fig 1/4 shows the annular shape of the outer surface).
Regarding claim 17, GROSSMANN, in view of SPIERLING, teaches the electrical machine according to claim 1:
wherein 30 to 60, guiding elements (Fig 2; 50) are arranged in a distributed manner over a circumference(Fig 2 shows around 90 guild elements distributed over a circumference).
PNG
media_image5.png
476
578
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Additionally, it has been held that mere duplication and omission of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, and therefore would be obvious to modify if needed. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Regarding claim 18, GROSSMANN, in view of SPIERLING, teaches the electrical machine according to claim 10:
wherein the rounded edge (Fig 4 shows rounded edges)of the at least some guiding elements (Fig 4; 50) is arranged on a discharge side(both radial sides are rounded therefore the discharge side must be rounded).
Regarding claim 19, GROSSMANN, in view of SPIERLING, teaches the electrical machine according to claim 11:
wherein the guiding elements (Fig 4; 50) are formed by connection towers(according the disclosure of the present invention a connection tower appears to be a broad common surface; GROSSMANN teaches this in Figure 4).
In regards to claim 20, GROSSMANN, in view of SPIERLING teaches the electrical machine according to claim 12.
GROSSMANN does not teach:
wherein the fan comprises an axial fan and the flow of the fluid comprises air.
SPIERLING teaches:
wherein the fan (Fig 3; 138)comprises an axial fan (the fan faces axially as shown in Fig 3)and the flow of the fluid comprises air(the fan moves cooling air [0019]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GROSSMANN (EP 1653592 A2)in view of IKONEN (US 20170141652 A1).
In regards to claim 8, GROSSMANN, in view of SPIERLING, teaches the electrical machine according to claim 1:
the outer surface (Fig 1; 132’) and a guiding element (Fig 4; 50)
the heat exchanger (Fig 4; 80)in the direction of flow(Fig 4; 120/130).
Combination GROSSMANN/SPIERLING does not teach:
a clear flow cross section continuously decreases, at least in some regions, from one guiding element to the next guiding element at an increasing distance.
IKONEN teaches:
a clear flow cross section (Fig 2; CR)between a guiding element (Fig 2; 240) continuously decreases(CR shortens over time in Fig 2), at least in some regions, from one guiding element (Fig 2; 240) to the next guiding element(Fig 2; 240) at an increasing distance(CR changes size from one guiding element 240 to the next).
PNG
media_image8.png
630
448
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify GROSSMANN by adding the clear flow cross section that change distance in some regions taught by IKONEN in order to increase the area of the stator that can transfer heat from the stator to the surrounding air. [0003 IKONEN].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is allowed.
Regarding claim 7: The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: GROSSMANN teaches:
the guiding elements (Fig 2; 50) have different spacings (Fig 1 shows a space between winding overhang 42 and outer surface 132’) from the outer surface (Fig 1; 132’).
However, the prior art does not teach:
wherein the guiding elements have a smaller spacing from the outer surface at an increasing distance from the heat exchanger in the direction of flow. (The underlined is allowable subject matter.)
Claim 7 is allowed, and not rejected, because the limitation of “the guiding elements have a smaller spacing from the outer surface at an increasing distance from the heat exchanger in the direction of flow” is not obviously combinable. While GROSSMAN and IKONEN teach all the element limitations, it would not be obvious to combine these elements while maintaining the functionality of the invention.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Citation of Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure. Prior Art:
ADRA (US 20060043801 A1) teaches locations of fans in tandem with cooling the motor, and heat exchanger.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS L SETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-3021. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8am-5pm EST.
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, Oluseye Iwarere can be reached at (571) 270-5112. 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.
/N.L.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834