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 April 22, 2026. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed: claims 1, 6-8, 13-16, and 20 were previously pending; claims 2-5, 9-12, and 17-19 were cancelled and no claims were added by amendment; and thus, claims 1, 6-8, 13-16, and 20 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 22, 2026 have been fully considered.
The Applicant's first point (page 12 of Remarks) acknowledges the claim objection and amends the errors appropriately. Therefor the claim objections are removed.
The Applicant's second point (page 12-15 of Remarks) amends claim 1 to clarify limitations. The Applicant goes on to argue that MATSUMOTO does not teach the limitations of claim 1. However, the Applicant does not bring up any structural differences and merely only state that MATSUMOTO is a groove while the present invention in a contoured side. This argument does not provide any structural differences between the prior art and the present invention but merely brings up potential manufacturing difference which would be interpreted as a product by process (MPEP 2113). The structural limitations of claim 1 is taught by MATSUMOTO, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production (carved groove vs contoured surface). No claim limitation is given by the Applicant to suggest how “a void fluid passage” and “abutting geometries” are structurally different from “any groove or channel” as provided in MATSUMOTO. The structural claim limitations of the present invention are interpreted by the Examiner to be analogous to the taught structure of MATSUMOTO. The Applicant instead only implies manufacturing methodology in the arguments which is neither claimed or holds patentable weight (product by process). If the Applicant can provide reasoning on why the STRUCTURE of the present invention is different from the prior art based on the current claim limitations, the argument would be reconsidered. The Examiner reminds the Applicant that the differences in structure must be claimed.
The Applicant goes on to make an argument for dependent claim 6-8 implying that the limitation, “a wavy cross-sectional profile” is narrower that interpretation than what is taught by MATSUMOTO. The Examiner highlights the “wavy cross-section” of MATSUMOTO on page 7 of the Final Rejection mailed on January 22, 2026 by defining the concave (3611) and convex contours (3612).
The Applicant goes on to make an argument for claims 14-15, and 20 regarding their similar limitations to claim 1.
The Applicant's third point (page 16-18 of Remarks) argues that the different embodiment of teaches a fundamental different cooling concept. While the examiner agrees on its own, the embodiment shown in Fig 9 does not teach all the limitations of claim 1 and 13, in combination with the embodiment of Fig 2 it does. The embodiment of Fig 9 only teaches that the cross sectional profile is asymmetrical. With this teaching and the given motivation provided on page 12 of the Final Action mailed on January 22, 2026, one with average skill in the art could make a design that both meets the limitations of claim 1 as shown in Fig 2 and is asymmetrical as shown in Fig 9. Additionally, the courts have held that a change in shape is well within the ability of one with average skill in the art In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
The Applicant goes on to make an argument that a combination of embodiments in MATSUMOTO would not teach the limitations of claim 16. The Examiner insists, with this teaching and the given motivation provided on page 13 of the Final Action mailed on January 22, 2026, one with average skill in the art could make a design that meets the limitations of claim 16. The Examiner insists that both: a channel between segments and a channel abutting the wall of a stator tooth can mutually exist, and it would be obvious for one with skill in the art to add or remove one thanks to the teachings of MATSUMOTO. Additionally, the courts have held that a change in shape is well within the ability of one with average skill in the art In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, 14-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated MATSUMOTO (US 20200235627 A1).
Regarding claim 1, MATSUMOTO teaches:
An e-machine (Fig 1; 10) comprising:
a stator core (Fig 1; 26) having a first axial end and a second axial end that are separated along a longitudinal axis(Fig 1; Y), the stator core having a slot (Fig 2; 30)that extends between the first axial end and the second axial end[0009];
a plurality of winding members(Fig 2; 34), the plurality of winding members comprising a plurality of longitudinal segments(Fig 2; 36) that are received in the slot (Fig 2; 30)and that extend between the first axial end and the second axial end[0047], individual ones of the plurality of longitudinal segments(Fig 2; 36) having a non-circular[0050] cross sectional profile whose perimeter includes including at least on(e) contoured side(Fig 2; 3611/3621) and at least on different side,
the plurality of longitudinal segments(Fig 2; 36) being disposed in an abutting arrangement in which the contoured side(Fig 2; 3611)of one of the longitudinal segments faces and is spaced from the different side (Fig 2; 3621) of a neighboring one of the longitudinal segments such that the contoured side(Fig 2; 3611) and the different side (Fig 2; 3621) cooperatively define a void fluid passageway(Fig 2; 50) within the slot (Fig 2; 30), the fluid passage extending(Fig 2; 50) between the first axial end and the second axial end of the stator core(Fig 2; 26)[0050] (also shown in Fig 3); and
wherein the fluid passageway (Fig 2; 50) is defined by abutting geometries of the neighboring longitudinal segments(Fig 2; 36) and is not defined by any groove or channel formed in a face of the longitudinal segments(Fig 2; 36)(Fig 2 shows that a fluid passageway 50 is formed by two abutting longitudinal segments 36. The structure of two abutting longitudinal segments and a groove appear analogous. No claim limitation is given by the Applicant to suggest how “a void fluid passage” and “abutting geometries” are structurally different from “any groove or channel”. These are interpreted by the Examiner to be analogous structures. The Applicant instead only implies manufacturing methodology in the arguments which is neither claimed or holds patentable weight (product by process)).
PNG
media_image1.png
702
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
689
516
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, MATSUMOTO teaches the e-machine of claim 1:
wherein the neighboring ones includes a first one (Fig 2; 361)of the plurality of longitudinal segments and a second one (Fig 2; 362)of the plurality of longitudinal segments, the first one (Fig 2; 361)including a wavy cross-sectional profile with a concave contour(Fig 2; 3611) and a convex contour(Fig 2; 3612), the convex contour abutting against a second one(Fig 2; 362) of the plurality of longitudinal segments in the abutting arrangement;
the concave contour (Fig 2; 3611)and the second one (Fig 2; 362)of the plurality of longitudinal segments cooperating to define the fluid passageway(Fig 2; 50).
Regarding claim 7, MATSUMOTO teaches the e-machine of claim 6:
wherein the first one (Fig 2; 361)and the second one(Fig 2; 362) of the plurality of longitudinal segments (Fig 2; 36)are stacked along a radial axis(Fig 2; Y);
wherein the second one (Fig 2; 362)of the plurality of longitudinal segments includes the wavy cross-sectional profile with an opposite concave contour(Fig 2; 3621) and an opposite convex contour(Fig 2; 3622), the concave contour(Fig 2; 3611) and the opposite concave contour(Fig 2; 3621) being contoured opposite each other along the radial axis(Fig 2; Z), the convex contour (Fig 2; 3612)and the opposite convex contour (Fig 2; 3622)being contoured opposite each other along the radial axis(Fig 2; Z);
wherein the convex contour (Fig 2; 3612)of the first one abuts the opposite convex contour (Fig 2; 3622)of the second one; and
wherein the concave contour(Fig 2; 3611) of the first one is aligned along the radial axis (Fig 2; Z)with the opposite concave contour(Fig 2; 3621) of the second one to cooperatively define the fluid passageway(Fig 2; 50).
Regarding claim 8, MATSUMOTO teaches the e-machine of claim 6:
wherein the cross-sectional profile has at least one contoured side and at least one flat side(longitudinal segments 361/362 but contain a flat and curves side radial opposite to each other).
Regarding claim 14, MATSUMOTO teaches:
An electric motor(Fig 1; 10) system comprising:
a housing (Fig 1; 18) that defines a motor cavity;
an electric motor(Fig 1; 10) that is received in the motor cavity(Fig 1; 18), the electric motor including a stator core (Fig 1; 26) having a first axial end and a second axial end that are separated along a longitudinal axis(Fig 1; Y), the stator core (Fig 1; 26)having a slot (Fig 1; 30)that extends between the first axial end and the second axial end[0047], the electric motor (Fig 1; 10)including a plurality of winding members(Fig 1; 34), the plurality of winding members (Fig 1; 34)comprising a plurality of longitudinal segments (Fig 2; 36)that are received in the slot (Fig 1; 30)and that extend between the first axial end and the second axial end[0050], individual ones of the plurality of longitudinal segments (Fig 2; 36)having a cross-sectional profile that is non-circular[0050], the plurality of longitudinal segments (Fig 2; 36)disposed in an abutting arrangement to define a fluid passageway (Fig 2; 50)within the slot (Fig 2; 30)and between neighboring ones of the plurality of longitudinal segments(Fig 2; 36), the fluid passageway (Fig 2; 50)extending between the first axial end and the second axial end of the stator core(Fig 2; 26)[0050] (also shown in Fig 3); and
a fluid coolant system [0051]configured to provide a coolant fluid into the cavity for flow along the fluid passageway(Fig 2; 50) between the first axial end and the second axial end[0057].
Regarding claim 15, MATSUMOTO teaches the e-machine of claim 14:
wherein the housing (Fig 1; 18)has a fluid inlet (Fig 1; 40)and a fluid outlet(Fig 1; 44), the fluid inlet (Fig 1; 40)and the fluid outlet (Fig 1; 44)being spaced apart along the longitudinal axis(Fig 1; Y), and the fluid inlet (Fig 1; 40)and the fluid outlet (Fig 1; 44)being in fluid communication with the fluid passageway(Fig 1; 50) [0051,0057].
Regarding claim 20, MATSUMOTO teaches:
A method of manufacturing an e-machine (Fig 1; 10)comprising:
providing a stator core (Fig 1; 26)having a first axial end and a second axial end that are separated along a longitudinal axis(Fig 1; Y), the stator core (Fig 1; 26)having a slot (Fig 1; 30) that extends between the first axial end and the second axial end[0047];
providing a plurality of winding members(Fig 2; 34), the plurality of winding members comprising a plurality of longitudinal segments(Fig 2; 36); and
inserting the plurality of longitudinal segments (Fig 2; 36)in the slot (Fig 2; 30)to extend between the first axial end and the second axial end(Fig 6; S18), individual ones of the plurality of longitudinal segments(Fig 2; 36) having a cross-sectional profile that is non-circular[0050], including disposing the plurality of longitudinal segments(Fig 2; 36) in an abutting arrangement to define a fluid passageway(Fig 2; 50) within the slot (Fig 2; 30)and between neighboring ones of the plurality of longitudinal segments(Fig 2; 36), the fluid passageway (Fig 2; 50)extending between the first axial end and the second axial end of the stator core(Fig 2; 26)[0050].
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) 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over several embodiments of MATSUMOTO (US 20200235627 A1).
In regards to claim 13, the embodiment of MATSUMOTO shown in figure 2, teaches the e-machine of claim 1.
The embodiment of MATSUMOTO shown in figure 2 does not teach:
wherein the cross-sectional profile is asymmetrical.
The embodiment of MATSUMOTO shown in figure 9 teaches:
wherein the cross-sectional profile is asymmetrical(Fig 9 shows a different embodiment that is asymmetrical along the radial axis).
PNG
media_image3.png
511
507
media_image3.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 the embodiment shown in Fig 2 of MATSUMOTO by using the asymmetrical cross sectional shape of the longitudinal taught by the embodiment shown in Fig 9 of MATSUMOTO in order to further ensured that the cooling fluid supplied to the coil end portions reaches the cooling grooves [0068 MATSUMOTO].
In regards to claim 16, the embodiment of MATSUMOTO shown in figure 2, teaches the e-machine of claim 14:
wherein the slot (Fig 2; 30)is defined by an inner slot surface of the stator core(Fig 2; 26).
The embodiment of MATSUMOTO shown in figure 2 does not teach:
wherein the plurality of longitudinal segments is disposed in the abutting arrangement within the slot to define another fluid passageway between the inner slot surface and the plurality of longitudinal segments, the other fluid passageway extending substantially along the longitudinal axis.
The embodiment of MATSUMOTO shown in figure 13 teaches:
wherein the plurality of longitudinal segments(Fig 13; 36) is disposed in the abutting arrangement within the slot (Fig 13; 30) to define another fluid passageway (Fig 13; 50)between the inner slot surface and the plurality of longitudinal segments, the other fluid passageway (Fig 13; 50)extending substantially along the longitudinal axis(Fig 13; Y)(another embodiment shown in Fig 13 has fluid passages 50 abutting two separate longitudinal segments 36 and abutting the slot wall).
PNG
media_image4.png
519
533
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 the embodiment shown in Fig 2 of MATSUMOTO by using the fluid passages created by the cross sectional shape of the longitudinal taught by the embodiment shown in Fig 13 of MATSUMOTO in order to further ensured that the cooling fluid supplied from the rotor can reach the cooling groove with a higher degree of reliability. [0071-73 MATSUMOTO].
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
Prosecution Insights