DETAILED ACTION
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 15 December 2025. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed: claims 1-14 were previously pending; claim 2 was canceled by the amendment; and thus, claims 1 and 3-14 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed 15 December 2025, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s first argument (pages 5-7 of the Remarks) alleges that Hinrich does not disclose the amended limitation of claim 1 which recites that “between the plurality of support points (11), the conductor (9) or the conductor bundle (10) does not contact the laminated core (3)”. In supporting this allegation, the argument points to the four lamination sections of Hinrich, elements 5, 15, 25, and 35 in shown figures 2-5, and states that each type of lamination contacts the conductors. While this means that the conductor, at any point in the axial direction, is contacted by a lamination, this does not preclude the recited limitation of the conductor not being contacted “between… support points”.
It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Looking at figures 2-5 of Hinrich, each lamination type supports the laminations on one circumferential and one radial side (¶ 0050-0052). As one example laminations [5] and [35] (fig. 2 and 5) contact the conductors on the left side, but laminations [15] and [25] (fig. 3-4) do not contact the left side of the conductors. Thus, between the left-side support portions of laminations [5] and [35] in the axial direction, the conductors are not contacted by the laminations. Thus, the arrangement of Hinrich does read on the amended limitations, the above argument is unpersuasive, and the previous grounds of rejection in view of Hinrich are maintained.
The Applicant’s second argument (page 7 of the Remarks) alleges that the remaining claims are allowable by virtue of their dependencies. This argument is unpersuasive for the same reasons given above.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 21 October 2025 was/were filed after mailing of the first action on the merits. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Disclosure
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 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)(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) 1, 3-9, 11, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hinrich et al. (US 2022/0311297 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Hinrich”.
Regarding claim 1, Hinrich discloses a stator [1] of an electric machine [10] (fig. 1-6; ¶ 0043), comprising a stator axis and a laminated core [2] on which stator teeth [2t] are formed, with stator grooves [3] lying between the stator teeth [2t], said laminated core [2] comprising a plurality of laminates [12] (fig. 1-5; ¶ 0044),
wherein the stator teeth [2t] are connected together via an annular stator yoke [2y] (fig. 1; ¶ 0044),
wherein a single conductor or a conductor bundle [4] comprising a plurality of conductors [4] is arranged in each stator groove [3] in order to form an electrical stator winding [11] (fig. 1-6; ¶ 0045),
PNG
media_image1.png
323
509
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein each of the stator grooves [3] has a groove base [3b] facing the stator yoke [2y] and a groove slot [3s] facing away from the groove base [3b] (fig. 2-5),
wherein a plurality of support points [43s] distanced from one another in an axial direction with respect to the stator axis are formed in the respective stator grooves [3] in order to support the conductor or conductor bundle [4] lying in the respective stator groove [3] (fig. 1-5; ¶ 0047-0050; each of the core units, axially adjacent to one another, have one side of wall 43 in contact with the conductors),
wherein at least one groove gap [43g], which forms a groove gap channel [43g] through which a coolant can flow along a cooling path, is formed between walls [43] of each stator groove [3] and the respective conductor or conductor bundle [4] (fig. 2-5; ¶ 0046-0053; the spaces within the slots rotate, swapping positions both circumferentially and radially relative to the conductors, creating channels that follow a “spiral-like course”),
wherein each groove gap channel [43g] is at least constricted at the support points [43s] (fig. 2-5; ¶ 0047-0050), wherein:
PNG
media_image2.png
274
839
media_image2.png
Greyscale
- the groove slot [3s] of each stator groove [3] is closed by a groove closure (fig. 1-5; ¶ 0047; while open slots are shown, “a peripherally closed wall 43” can also be provided, with the radially inner side of wall 43 corresponding to said “groove closure”),
- a respective bypass [23] is provided in each stator groove [3] at each of the support points [43s] in order to conduct the coolant past the constricted support point [43s] in the groove gap channel [43g] (fig. 2-5; ¶ 0046-0048), and
- the respective bypasses [23] are arranged at the different support points [43s] of the same stator groove [3] at different radial positions such that a meandering cooling path is formed in the stator groove [3] (fig. 2-5; ¶ 0048; the bypasses are positioned either radially inside the conductors or radially outside the conductors),
wherein the bypasses [23] of the different support points [43s] of the same stator groove [3] are each formed either at the groove base [3b] or in the groove closure such that a meandering cooling path is formed in the stator groove [3] (fig. 2-5; ¶ 0046-0053; the spaces within the slots rotate, swapping positions both circumferentially and radially relative to the conductors, creating channels that follow a “spiral-like course”),
wherein between the plurality of support points [43s], the conductor or the conductor bundle [4] does not contact the laminated core [2] (fig. 2-5; ¶ 0050-0052; the laminations, between the support portions in the axial direction, do not contact the conductors; e.g., laminations [5] and [35] contact the conductors on the left side, but laminations [15] and [25] do not contact the left side of the conductors).
Regarding claim 3, Hinrich discloses the stator [1] according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the bypasses [23] of the different support points [43s] of the same stator groove [3] are formed alternatingly at the groove base [3b] or in the groove closure in order to form the meandering cooling path from one support point [43s] to the next support point [43s] (fig. 2-5; ¶ 0046-0053; the spaces within the slots rotate, swapping positions both circumferentially and radially relative to the conductors, creating channels that follow a “spiral-like course”).
Regarding claim 4, Hinrich discloses the stator [1] according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein each bypass [23] is formed by a bypass channel [23], wherein the bypass channel [23] has a channel width that is smaller than a conductor width of the conductor or conductor bundle [4] (fig. 2-5; the radial dimension of the gap, 23, is clearly shown as being only a small fraction of the radial dimension of the conductor bundle).
Regarding claim 5, Hinrich discloses the stator [1] according to claim 4, as stated above, wherein that the laminated core [2] comprises a plurality of identical laminates [12] (¶ 0044; each core unit is formed of multiple identical laminations), wherein each individual laminate of the identical laminates [12] comprises a plurality of groove recesses for forming the stator grooves [3], wherein, relative to any of the individual laminates, a bypass recess [23] is provided at the groove base [3b] of selected groove recesses distributed along a periphery according to a selected pattern, the bypass recesses [23] forming the bypass channel [23] (fig. 2-5; ¶ 0046-0053).
Regarding claim 6, Hinrich discloses the stator [1] according to claim 5, as stated above, wherein, in the laminated core [2], a plurality of the identical laminates [12] are rotated about the stator axis such that the bypasses [23] are formed in the individual stator grooves [3] at a selected axial position and over a selected length (fig. 2-5; ¶ 0046-0053; the spaces within the slots rotate, swapping positions both circumferentially and radially relative to the conductors, creating channels that follow a “spiral-like course”).
Regarding claim 7, Hinrich discloses the stator [1] according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the groove closures of the stator grooves [3] are each formed by a single groove closure element, or are formed integrally, or as a plurality of pieces on a slotted tube (fig. 1-5; ¶ 0047; while open slots are shown, “a peripherally closed wall 43” can also be provided, with the radially inner side of wall 43 corresponding to said integrally formed “groove closure”).
Regarding claim 8, Hinrich discloses the stator [1] according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the support points [43s] are formed by rotating at least two laminates of the laminated core [2] about the stator axis by a selected angular rotation (fig. 1-5; ¶ 0048-0050).
Regarding claim 9, Hinrich discloses the stator [1] according to claim 8, as stated above, wherein, by rotating the laminates of the laminated core [2] in order to form the respective support point [43s], support sections of the laminates are formed which project into the respective stator groove [3] from opposite sides of the stator groove [3] so as to hold the conductor or conductor bundle [4] between the support sections [43s] at holding surfaces of the conductor or conductor bundle [4] (fig. 1-5; ¶ 0047-0050; each of the core units, axially adjacent to one another, have one side of wall 43 in contact with the conductors).
Regarding claim 11, Hinrich discloses the stator [1] according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the conductor bundle [4] includes a stack of flat wire conductors (fig. 2-5; the conductors are rectangular, with four flat sides).
Regarding claim 13, Hinrich discloses the stator [1] according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the bypasses [23] of the different support points [43s] of the same stator groove [3] formed at the groove base [3b] are in the groove base [3b] or in the tooth flanks at the groove base [3b] (fig. 2-5; ¶ 0048; the bypasses are positioned either radially inside the conductors or radially outside the conductors).
Regarding claim 14, Hinrich discloses the stator [1] according to claim 3, as stated above, wherein the bypasses [23] of the different support points [43s] of the same stator groove [3] formed alternatingly at the groove base [3b] are in the groove base [3b] or in the tooth flanks at the groove base [3b] (fig. 2-5; ¶ 0048; the bypasses are positioned either radially inside the conductors or radially outside the conductors).
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, 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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinrich in view of Almeida E Silva et al. (US 2022/0014062 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Almeida”.
Regarding claim 10, Hinrich discloses an electric machine [10] having a stator [1] according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the stator winding [4] forms a winding head on each end face of the stator [1] (fig. 6; ¶ 0053).
Hinrich does not disclose a housing in which the stator [1] is arranged, or that a winding head cooling chamber which accommodates the respective winding head is provided inside the housing on each end face of the stator for cooling the respective winding head, wherein flow is thereby achievable through the stator grooves [3] from one of the two winding head cooling chambers through the cooling path of the stator grooves to the other winding head cooling chamber.
Almeida discloses an electric machine [1] having a housing [11,25] in which a stator [2] is arranged (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0068-0070, 0088-0089), wherein the stator winding [6] forms a winding head [14a,14b] on each end face of the stator [2] (fig. 1; ¶ 0090), wherein a winding head cooling chamber [4,5] which accommodates the respective winding head [14a,14b] is provided inside the housing [11,25] on each end face of the stator [2] for cooling the respective winding head [14a,14b], wherein flow is thereby achievable through the stator grooves [3] from one of the two winding head cooling chambers [4,5] through the cooling path of the stator grooves [9] to the other winding head cooling chamber [4,5] (fig. 1; ¶ 0064-0066).
PNG
media_image3.png
517
756
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the electric machine of Hinrich with a housing having winding head cooling chambers as taught by Almeida, in order to effectively cool the thermally loaded end portions of the stator windings (¶ 0090 of Almeida).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoblauch et al. (US 2018/0351434 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Knoblauch”.
Regarding claim 12, Hinrich discloses the stator [1] according to claim 1, as stated above. Hinrich does not disclose that the coolant is oil.
Knoblauch discloses an electric machine [1] comprising a stator [2], wherein a coolant circulates within the electric machine (fig. 1; ¶ 0052-0053), and wherein the coolant is oil (¶ 0055).
PNG
media_image4.png
353
587
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the electric machine of Hinrich using oil as the coolant as taught by Knoblauch, in order to provide reliable lubrication over a long operational time period (¶ 0036 of Knoblauch) in addition to cooling.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Prior art:
Stoll et al. (US 2020/0373803 A1) discloses a stator with windings in slots, having a plurality of support points within said slots.
E Silva et al. (US 2020/0156296 A1) discloses an electric machine comprising a stator disposed within a housing having cavities in which end windings of the stator are cooled by a coolant which enters one cavity, passes through channels within the stator slots, and exits the other cavity.
Leistner (US 4,323,802) discloses an electric machine comprising a stator with windings disposed in slots, and gaps between the slots and the conductors disposed within used as coolant channels.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/about-ptab/new-ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/patent-trial-and-appeal-board-pro-bono-program-independent. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final replay that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Andrews whose telephone number is (571)270-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30am-3:00pm.
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 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.
/Michael Andrews/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834