DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/335,190, filed on 15 June, 2023, were presented for examination. In the response filed 41 July, 2025, claims 2, 14, and 20 were canceled and new claims 21-23 were added. Claims 1, 3-13, 15-19, and 21-23 are currently pending in the application.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3 February, 2026, has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1, 3, and 16-18 are allowable. The restriction requirement between Invention I (Claims 1, 3-13, and 15-19) and Invention II (Claims 21-23), as set forth in the Office action mailed on 3 October, 2025, has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a) and in response to the traversal filed 3 February, 2026. The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement of 3 October, 2025, is withdrawn. Claims 21-23, directed to Invention II, are no longer withdrawn from consideration because claim 21 requires all the crucial limitations of an allowable claim (claim 17).
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3 February, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 3, 8-9, 11-13, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as anticipated by Bradfield in view of Kong, and claims 4, 6, 7, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 under Bradfield in view of Kong, further in view of Zhang, have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The Examiner accepts the reasoning apropos the support (pages 9-11 of the response) for the new limitations added to the claims. Between the text of the specification and the drawings, all of the newly added limitations were clearly in possession/knowledge of Applicant at the time of original filing of the application.
The arguments against the rejections of claims 1, 3, 8, 9, 11-13, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Bradfield in view of Kong begin on page 12 of the response. On page 12 Applicant lays forth the relevant clauses of claim 1, and in page 16 Applicant lays forth the relevant clauses of claim 17. The Examiner will add that they are similar to each other, and that independent claim 21 also has them. The arguments are voluminous and as the Examiner has deemed the arguments over the independent claims persuasive and indicated the independent claims as being allowable, many arguments against the dependent claims will be treated as moot.
At the bottom of claim 12 Applicant asserts that Bradfield does not disclose a stator core having outer coolant grooves… yoke flow channels… spaced radially inward from the outer radial surface and intersect and are interrupted by the outer coolant grooves. The Examiner, as shown in the prior Office Action, concurs. As asserted by Applicant at the top of page 13, Bradfield fails to teach the specific lamination-integrated arrangement. Applicant, in the first full paragraph of page 13, asserts that Kong fails to cure these deficiencies.
Specifically, Applicant draws focus to the fact that “Kong does not disclose a plurality of outer coolant grooves recessed into the lamination outer surface and spaced apart along the axis, nor that such grooves intersect and interrupt yoke flow channels extending through the core as required…”
Although the Examiner was relying on Kong only to show that Bradfield’s yoke flow channels could be spaced, and that it would be obvious to space them, radially inward from the outer surface of the core, Applicant, by focusing on Kong’s failure to meet the actual language of the relevant structure in claim 1 (and claims 17 and 21) as currently amended, has forced the Examiner to consider whether, in incorporating Kong’s teaching to modify Bradfield, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be left with Bradfield’s channel structure, in which the outer coolant grooves do intersect and interrupt yoke flow channels, etc., or Kong’s structure, which only has one outer coolant groove. The fact that one must question this makes it inherent that keeping Bradfield’s actual array of cooling passages intact, while taking just the single teaching from Kong, would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Following the rest of the middle paragraph of page 13 of the response, Kong does not address the “specific structural relationship now recited in claim 1” and there is insufficient (the Examiner will not agree with Applicant that there is “no suggestion”) suggestion in Bradfield or Kong to modify Bradfield’s device with Kong to result in the claimed device.
Applicant at various points in the arguments argues about “multiple lamination-recessed grooves” and “lamination grooves” and in passing the Examiner contends that this is not in the claim and that Bradfield does teach it. However, the Examiner is agreeing on the basic principle being put forth by Applicant on this matter.
Applicant moves on, in the last paragraph of page 13, to assert that neither Bradfield nor Kong teaches or suggests wherein a plurality of winding openings are disposed radially between the plurality of tooth flow channels and the plurality of yoke flow channels. Applicant at this point does not mention the Zhang reference, which was applied against this limitation when it was in claims 4 and 19 (see prior Office Action). However, the Examiner (see Reasons for Allowance below) agrees with the arguments (first full paragraph page 14 of the response) that Bradfield is not readily configured to accept such an arrangement without undue modification, and modification in light of Kong will not cure this deficiency.
As the arguments against the rejections of the dependent claims are now moot, the Examiner will move onto the arguments against the rejection of independent claim 17. The issue boils down to the same points discussed with respect to claim 1, so the Examiner will not repeat his reasons for their being persuasive; they are so for the same reasons as claim 1. The same can be said for claim 21, which more-or-less has the important features of claims 1 and 17, at least those that matter for patentability.
At the bottom of page 18 and through to the bottom of page 19 the Applicant argues against the application of Zhang against dependent claim 4. Without going into detail, the Examiner concurs with the general argument and this has contributed to his reasoning as concerns the allowability of the independent claims, which now contain limitations generally in accordance with original claim 4.
Pages 20-27 continue to argue against the rejections of the dependent claims. They have been considered but are generally moot due to the allowance of the independent claims.
Applicant in page 27 of the response addresses the election/restriction imposed by the Office in the prior Office action. Applicant asserts that the subcombinations are not patentably distinct and the Examiner has not established separate utility for the groups. Because claims 1 and 17 have been so heavily amended, such that they are not patentably distinct from claim 21 anymore, the Examiner concedes Applicant’s argument and will not discuss the propriety of the original requirement, which made more sense when claim 21 had multiple features not required by claims 1 and 17. As indicated elsewhere in this Office Action, the restriction requirement has been withdrawn and claims 21-23 have been examined herein.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-13, 15-19, and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 13 of claim 1 recites the limitation “along the axis of the outer radial surface” which creates an antecedent-basis problem because the outer radial surface has no axis. The Examiner believes this is a typo (it appears correctly in line 17) and should appear as “along the axis on the outer radial surface”.
In line 29 of claim 1, the limitation “the plurality of outer coolant groove” should be changed to “the plurality of outer coolant grooves” (grooves being pluralized).
In line 12 of claim 17, the limitation “the inner radial surf ace being smooth…” should be changed to “the inner radial surface being smooth…” (surface being a single word).
In line 10 of claim 21, the limitation “the inner radial surf ace being smooth…” should be changed to “the inner radial surface being smooth…” (surface being a single word).
Claims 3-13, and 15-16 are objected to for depending from objected-to claim 1, claims 18-19 are objected to for depending from objected-to claim 17, and claims 22-23 are objected for depending from objected-to claim 21.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 4-13 and 15 are 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 4 recites the limitation "the yoke flow channel" in lines 4-5 and “the tooth flow channel” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is noted that the most recent amendment made the yoke flow channels and the tooth flow channels plural, such that the use of the singular in claim 4 leaves it unclear which “channel”, of the plural channels in each case, is being referred to.
Likewise, for the rejections of claims 5-7 below, it is noted that the antecedent basis (in as-amended claim 1) for the tooth flow channels now has them in the plural.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the tooth flow channel" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The general limitation should be changed to “the tooth flow channels have…”
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the tooth flow channel" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The general limitation should be changed to “the tooth flow channels extend…”
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the tooth flow channel" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The general limitation should be changed to “the tooth flow channels are…”
Likewise, for the rejections of claims 8-13 below, it is noted that the antecedent basis (in as-amended claim 1) for the yoke flow channels now has them in the plural.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the yoke flow channel" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The general limitation should be changed to “the yoke flow channels have…”
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the yoke flow channel" in line 2 (two instances). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For both instances, the limitation “the yoke flow channel” should be changed to “each yoke flow channel” or something similar.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the yoke flow channel" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The general limitation should be changed to “each yoke flow channel radially overlaps…” or something similar.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the yoke flow channel" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The general limitation should be changed to “the yoke flow channels extend…”
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the yoke flow channel" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The general limitation should be changed to “each yoke flow channels is…” or something similar.
Claim 13 is rejected for depending from rejected claim 12.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the outer coolant groove" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that the outer coolant grooves are now also in the plural following the most recent amendment to claim 1. The general limitation should be changed to “each outer coolant groove extends” or “the outer coolant grooves extend” or something similar.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the respective claims upon which they depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claims upon which they depend. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 4 contains no limitations that are not found in as-amended claim 1, upon which it depends. The redundancy resulted from the incorporation of the limitations of the winding openings being disposed radially between the yoke flow channels and the tooth flow channels into claim 1, lines 26-27, during the most recent amendment.
Claim 19 contains no limitations that are not found in as-amended claim 17, upon which it depends. The redundancy resulted from the incorporation of functionally-identical limitations into the last clause of claim 17 during the most recent amendment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 16-18, and 21-23 would be allowable if claims 1, 17, and 21 were rewritten or amended to overcome the objections set forth in this Office Action, above.
Claims 5-13 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, and also if claims 1 and 17 are amended to overcome the objections set forth in this Office Action.
With respect to claim 1, and all claims dependent thereon, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest, inter alia, a stator core configured for an e-machine of an e-machine system, the stator core configured to fluidly connect to a fluid coolant system of the e-machine system, the stator core comprising:
a first end;
a second end that is separated from the first end along an axis;
an inner radial surface facing radially toward the axis and extending along the axis between the first end and the second end, the inner radial surface being smooth and continuous about the axis;
an outer radial surface facing radially away from the axis and extending along the axis between the first end and the second end;
a plurality of outer coolant grooves recessed into the outer radial surface of the stator core, the plurality of outer coolant grooves extending about the axis and spaced apart along the axis on the outer radial surface;
a plurality of yoke flow channels extending through the stator core along the axis and spaced radially inward from the outer radial surface, each of the plurality of yoke flow channels intersecting and being fluidly connected to at least one of the plurality of outer coolant grooves and being interrupted thereby as the respective yoke flow channel extends along the axis;
a plurality of winding openings extending through the stator core along the axis, the plurality of winding openings configured to receive respective stator windings of the e-machine therein, the plurality of winding openings disposed radially between the plurality of yoke flow channels and a plurality of tooth flow channels extending through the stator core along the axis; and
the plurality of outer coolant grooves configured to receive coolant of the fluid coolant system and distribute the coolant to the plurality of yoke flow channels for axial flow of the coolant toward at least one of the first end and the second end.
With respect to claim 17, and claim 18 which is dependent thereon, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest, inter alia, an e-machine system comprising:
an e-machine with a stator member;
a stator core of the stator member;
a housing that receives the stator core and cooperates with the stator core to define a first end fluid chamber at a first end of the stator core and a second end fluid chamber at a second end of the stator core; and
a fluid coolant system that is operatively connected to the stator core;
wherein the stator core comprising:
the first end and the second end that is separated from the first end along an axis;
an inner radial surface facing radially toward the axis and extending along the axis between the first end and the second end, the inner radial surface being smooth and continuous about the axis;
an outer radial surface facing radially away from the axis and extending along the axis between the first end and the second end;
a plurality of outer coolant grooves recessed into the outer radial surface of the stator core, the plurality of outer coolant grooves extending about the axis and spaced apart along the axis on the outer radial surface, the plurality of outer coolant grooves cooperating with the housing to define a plurality of arcuate fluid channels;
a plurality of yoke flow channels extending through the stator core along the axis and spaced radially inward from the outer radial surface, the plurality of yoke flow channels intersecting and being fluidly connected to the plurality of arcuate fluid channels and being interrupted thereby as the plurality of yoke flow channels extend axially toward the first end fluid chamber and the second end fluid chamber, each of the plurality of yoke flow channels including a first end outlet to the first end fluid chamber and a second end outlet to the second end fluid chamber,
a plurality of winding openings extending through the stator core along the axis, the plurality of winding openings configured to receive respective stator windings of the stator member therein; and
a plurality of tooth flow channels extending through the stator core along the axis, the plurality of winding openings disposed radially between the plurality of yoke flow channels and the plurality of tooth flow channels;
wherein the fluid coolant system includes a first inlet through the housing fluidly connected to at least one of the plurality of arcuate fluid channels to supply a first supply of coolant thereto for distribution to the plurality of yoke flow channels, and a second inlet through the housing fluidly connected to the plurality of tooth flow channels proximate the first end for supplying a second supply of coolant to the plurality of tooth flow channels for axial flow therethrough toward the second end.
With respect to claim 21, and claims 22-23 which depend thereon, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest, inter alia, an e-machine system comprising:
a housing;
a stator core received in the housing and comprising:
a first end;
a second end that is separated from the first end along an axis;
a first end fluid chamber cooperatively defined by the housing and the first end;
a second end fluid chamber cooperatively defined by the housing and the second end;
an inner radial surface facing radially toward the axis and extending along the axis between the first end and the second end, the inner radial surf ace being smooth and continuous about the axis;
an outer radial surface facing radially away from the axis and extending along the axis between the first end and the second end;
a plurality of outer coolant grooves recessed into the outer radial surface of the stator core, the plurality of outer coolant grooves extending about the axis, the plurality of outer coolant grooves spaced apart along the axis on the outer radial surf ace, the plurality of outer coolant grooves cooperating with the housing to define a plurality of arcuate fluid channels;
a plurality of winding openings extending through the stator core along the axis, the plurality of winding openings configured to receive respective stator windings of the e- machine therein;
a plurality of yoke flow channels extending along the axis and respectively including a first end outlet to the first end fluid chamber, the plurality of yoke flow channels respectively including a second end outlet to the second end fluid chamber, the plurality of yoke flow channels spaced radially inward from the outer radial surface to extend through the stator core along the axis, the plurality of yoke flow channels intersecting and fluidly connected to the plurality of arcuate fluid channels and interrupted thereby as the plurality of yoke flow channels extend axially toward the first end outlet and the second end outlet;
a plurality of tooth flow channels extending through the stator core along the axis, the plurality of winding openings disposed radially between the plurality of yoke flow channels and the plurality of tooth flow channels;
a first fluid inlet through the housing configured to supply a first supply of coolant to at least one of the plurality of arcuate fluid channels, which distributes the first supply of coolant to the plurality of yoke flow channels; and
a second fluid inlet through the housing and configured to supply a second supply of coolant to the plurality of tooth flow channels proximate the first end for axial flow therethrough toward the second end.
In the prior Office Action, the Examiner relied on Bradfield in view of Kong for most of the rejections, and also on Zhang for claims 4 and 19. Bradfield teaches much of pre-amendment claims 1 and 17, including a core with first and second ends, a smooth inner radial surface, an outer radial surface with outer coolant grooves recessed into it and which extend about the axis to create arcuate fluid channels, and yoke channels extending axially along the outer coolant grooves, but fails to teach the yoke flow channels spaced radially inward from the outer radial surface. It was shown that Kong teaches and makes obvious the spacing of the outer coolant grooves/channels radially inward from the outer radial surface.
However, the most recent amendment has modified the limitation about the yoke flow channels to have them not only extending axially along the outer coolant grooves, but also such that each of them intersects and fluidly connected to at least one of the plurality of outer coolant grooves and being interrupted thereby. Bradfield does teach the yoke flow channels extending along the outer coolant grooves and such that each one intersects and fluidly connects to at least one of the plurality of outer coolant grooves and being interrupted thereby, but, as put forth in Applicant’s arguments, in modifying Bradfield with Kong, as was done by the Examiner, the logical result is that the combination and resulting stator core would have the yoke flow channels of Kong, which are not arranged such that that each of them intersects and fluidly connected to at least one of the plurality of outer coolant grooves and being interrupted thereby (because Kong only has one outer coolant groove). For all that could result in the combination of Bradfield of Kong, the most that the Examiner felt comfortable establishing about the yoke flow channels was that it was obvious they could be spaced radially inwardly of the outer radial surface – in other words, there is insufficient evidence that Kong teaches the limitation in its fullness, or as put forth in page 13 of the arguments/response, Kong “does not address the specific structural relationship now recited in claim 1, in which… (i) multiple axially spaced grooves are formed directly in the lamination stack, and (ii) those grooves physically intersect and interrupt internal yoke channels…” The combination of Bradfield and Kong could result in various alternatives, but the Examiner could find insufficient evidence that the specific structural relationship of the relevant clause of claims 1, 17, and 21 would be the obvious one, or even obvious to try.
In the event that an argument could be made that Bradfield in view of Kong could be shown to make obvious the limitations about the yoke flow channels and outer coolant grooves, their relative orientations and how they are intersecting and interrupting each other, it seems to the Examiner that to at this point further modify the stator core of Bradfield in view of Kong to have a plurality of winding openings disposed radially between the yoke flow channels and a plurality of tooth flow channels, even though this exists in the art (see Zhang, applied to claims 4 and 19 in the prior Office Action), would more likely result from hindsight reasoning in light of the present application than from a practitioner of ordinary skill in the art following the teachings of the references themselves, making decisions based on explicit embodiments and motivations of the three references and commonly known principles, such that the Examiner does not believe that claims 1, 17, and/or 21, each entailing such a large number of individual, albeit known, features in combination, would be an obvious result of the available evidence (including other references cited in PTO Form 892 that have not been applied to the claims or otherwise discussed) without the act/use of hindsight reasoning in light of the present application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
An extended and updated search yielded additional references that have been cited in PTO Form 892, attached. These references do not materially affect the allowability indicated above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL K SCHLAK whose telephone number is (703)756-1685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:00 pm 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, Seye 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.
/Daniel K Schlak/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834