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 19 March 2026. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed: claims 1-3, 6, 8, 12-16, and 19-20 were previously pending, with claims 12-13 and 20-26 being withdrawn from consideration; claims 12-13 and 20-26 were canceled and claims 27-35 were added by the amendment; and thus, claims 1-3, 6, 8, 14-16, 19, and 27-35 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed 19 March 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s first argument (pages 5-7 of the Remarks) alleges, regarding the previous grounds of rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 102, that Adimula does not disclose that the cavity “at least partially surrounds the stator” or that the cooling vessel is “in thermal contact with the stator”. The argument consists of various non-sequitur statements, such as pointing to the coolant being directed through passages to condensers as supporting the conclusion that the cooling vessel does not define any cavity. However, these two disclosures are not mutually exclusive. The coolant [30] is clearly located inside the cooling vessel [18] which is in direct contact with and surrounds a portion of the outer perimeter of the stator [14] (fig. 1-3). Since no clear argument, and no supporting evidence has been provided in support of the above allegations, this argument is unpersuasive and the previous grounds of rejection in view of Adimula are maintained.
The Applicant’s second argument (pages 7-9 of the Remarks) alleges, regarding the previous grounds of rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 and the rejections of the dependent claims, that Adimula does not disclose the amended limitations of the claims as discussed in the first argument. This argument is unpersuasive for the same reasons given above.
The Applicant’s third argument (pages 9-10 of the Remarks) alleges, regarding new claims 27-28 and 32, that these claims are allowable because Adimula does not disclose the coolant reservoir surrounding the stator as recited. While Adimula does not disclose the cavity surrounding the axial sides of the stator, or the stator being disposed entirely within the cavity, the Dijken reference (previously cited) does disclose these limitations. Thus, new grounds of rejection have been made below.
The Applicant’s fourth argument (page 10 of the Remarks) alleges, regarding new claims 29-31, that Adimula does not disclose the new limitations thereof. The argument consists of various non-sequitur statements, such as pointing to the coolant being directed through passages to condensers as supporting the conclusion that the cooling vessel does not form a structural housing portion. However, these two disclosures are not mutually exclusive. For example, the cooling vessel [18] is in direct contact with and surrounds a portion of the outer perimeter of the stator [14], thereby forming a structural component of the housing (fig. 1-3). Since no clear argument, and no supporting evidence has been provided in support of the above allegations, these arguments are unpersuasive and new grounds of rejection have been made in view of Adimula.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 27 and 33 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 27 recites the limitation “at least two opposing axial sides of the stator”. Since the stator is cylindrical, having one circumferential surface and two opposing axial surfaces, it is unclear whether the term “at least two” can include instances of more than two axial surfaces.
Claim 33 recites the limitation “at least two opposing axial sides of the stator”. Since the stator is cylindrical, having one circumferential surface and two opposing axial surfaces, it is unclear whether the term “at least two” can include instances of more than two axial surfaces.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14-16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Adimula et al. (US 2016/0285345 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Adimula”.
Regarding claim 14, Adimula discloses a motor [10] (fig. 1-3; ¶ 0008) comprising:
a rotor [16] (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0008-0009);
a stator [14] configured to magnetically interact with the rotor [16] (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0008-0009; “electric current is produced in stator case 14 which creates a magnetic field that rotates rotor 16”);
an axle [22] connected to the rotor [16] and the stator [14] (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0008); and
PNG
media_image1.png
484
827
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a cooling vessel [18] defining a cavity [18c] that at least partially surrounds the stator [14] (fig. 1, 3; ¶ 0008, 0017-0018), the cooling vessel [18] being in thermal contact with the stator [14] (fig. 1-3; ¶ 0010), wherein the cooling vessel [18] is configured to radiate heat away from the motor [10] (¶ 0010).
Regarding claim 15, Adimula discloses the motor [10] of claim 14, as stated above, wherein the cooling vessel [18] contains a liquid [30] (fig. 3; ¶ 0013, 0018).
Regarding claim 16, Adimula discloses the motor [10] of claim 15, as stated above, wherein the stator [14] is immersed in the liquid [30] in the cooling vessel [18] (fig. 1-3; ¶ 0016-0018).
Regarding claim 19, Adimula discloses the motor [10] of claim 14, as stated above, wherein the cooling vessel [18] contains a phase change material [30] (¶ 0012-0014, 0018).
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) 33-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adimula in view of Dijken et al. (US 2023/0135457A1), hereinafter referred to as “Dijken”.
Regarding claim 33, Adimula discloses the motor [10] of claim 14, as stated above. Adimula does not disclose that the cavity [18c] surrounds the stator along a perimeter and along at least two opposing axial sides of the stator [14].
Dijken discloses a motor [100] comprising a cooling vessel [110A,110B] defining a cavity [112] (fig. 1; ¶ 0051-0052), wherein the cavity [112] surrounds the stator [104] along a perimeter and along at least two opposing axial sides of the stator [104] (fig. 1; the cavity fully encloses the stator).
PNG
media_image2.png
666
558
media_image2.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 cooling vessel and cavity of Adimula fully encompassing the stator to the outside as taught by Dijken, in order to increase heat transfer from the stator thereby improving motor efficiency (¶ 0016 of Dijken).
Regarding claim 34, Adimula discloses the motor [10] of claim 14, as stated above. Adimula does not disclose that the stator [14] is disposed entirely within the cavity.
Dijken discloses a motor [100] comprising a cooling vessel [110A,110B] defining a cavity [112] (fig. 1; ¶ 0051-0052), wherein the stator [104] is disposed entirely within the cavity [112] (fig. 1; the cavity fully encloses the stator).
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 cooling vessel and cavity of Adimula fully encompassing the stator to the outside as taught by Dijken, in order to increase heat transfer from the stator thereby improving motor efficiency (¶ 0016 of Dijken).
Regarding claim 35, Adimula discloses the motor [10] of claim 14, as stated above. Adimula does not disclose that the cooling vessel [18] comprises a thermally conductive metal body.
Dijken discloses a motor [100] comprising a cooling vessel [110A,110B] defining a cavity [112] (fig. 1; ¶ 0051-0052), wherein the cooling vessel [110A,110B] comprises a thermally conductive metal body (¶ 0015, 0051; the vessel, formed by the rotor, is made of a “ferromagnetic material”, i.e. a metal containing iron).
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 cooling vessel of Adimula from a thermally conductive metal body as taught by Dijken, in order to increase heat transfer from the stator to the outside thereby improving motor efficiency (¶ 0016 of Dijken).
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8, and 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farahmand et al. (US 2024/0051404 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Farahmand”, in view of Adimula.
Regarding claim 1, Farahmand discloses a wheel system [100] of a terrain vehicle [10] (fig. 1B, 2; ¶ 0028, 0059), the wheel system [100] comprising:
a wheel [300] connected to a rotor [210] (fig. 1B; ¶ 0028, 0030);
a stator [220] configured to magnetically interact with the rotor [210] (fig. 1B; ¶ 0030, 0034); and
PNG
media_image3.png
681
516
media_image3.png
Greyscale
an axle [380] connected to the rotor [210] and the stator [220], wherein the axle [380] is rotationally connected to the stator [220] (fig. 1B; ¶ 0028, 0032).
Farahmand does not disclose a cooling vessel at least partially surrounding, and in thermal contact with, the stator, wherein the cooling vessel is configured to radiate heat away from the wheel system.
Adimula discloses a motor [10] (fig. 1-3; ¶ 0008) comprising:
a rotor [16] (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0008-0009);
a stator [14] configured to magnetically interact with the rotor [16] (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0008-0009; “electric current is produced in stator case 14 which creates a magnetic field that rotates rotor 16”);
an axle [22] connected to the rotor [16] and the stator [14] (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0008); and
PNG
media_image1.png
484
827
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a cooling vessel [18] defining a cavity [18c] that at least partially surrounds the stator [14] (fig. 1, 3; ¶ 0008, 0017-0018), the cooling vessel [18] being in thermal contact with the stator [14] (fig. 1-3; ¶ 0010), wherein the cooling vessel [18] is configured to radiate heat away from the motor [10] (¶ 0010).
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 wheel system motor of Farahmand having the liquid cooling system as taught by Adimula, in order to maximize the transfer rate of thermal energy from the motor without the need for an external pumping mechanism to operate and/or pump the coolant (¶ 0012-0013 of Adimula).
Regarding claim 2, Farahmand, in view of Adimula, discloses the wheel system [100] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein Adimula further discloses that the cooling vessel [18] contains a liquid [30] (fig. 3; ¶ 0013, 0018).
Regarding claim 3, Farahmand, in view of Adimula, discloses the wheel system [100] of claim 2, as stated above, wherein Adimula further discloses that the stator [14] is immersed in the liquid [30] in the cooling vessel [18] (fig. 1-3; ¶ 0016-0018).
Regarding claim 6, Farahmand, in view of Adimula, discloses the wheel system [100] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein Adimula further discloses that the cooling vessel [18] contains a phase change material [30] (¶ 0012-0014, 0018).
Regarding claim 8, Farahmand, in view of Adimula, discloses the wheel system [100] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein Adimula further discloses heat fins [20] that extend from the cooling vessel [18] (fig. 1, 3; ¶ 0012-0013), wherein the cooling vessel [18] radiates at least a portion of the heat away from the {wheel system} via the heat fins [20] (¶ 0013).
Regarding claim 29, Farahmand, in view of Adimula, discloses the wheel system [100] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein Adimula further discloses that the cooling vessel [18] forms a structural housing portion of the wheel system (fig. 1-3; ¶ 0008; the cooling vessel is directly attached to the surface of the stator case, forming a structural component of the housing).
Regarding claim 30, Farahmand, in view of Adimula, discloses the wheel system [100] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the cavity [18c] defines a volume enclosing a heat storage medium [30] in thermal contact with the stator [14] (fig. 1-3; ¶ 0017-0018).
Regarding claim 31, Farahmand, in view of Adimula, discloses the wheel system [100] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the cooling vessel [18] is in direct physical contact with the stator [14] along a circumferential surface of the stator [14] (fig. 1).
Claim(s) 27-28 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farahmand and Adimula as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dijken.
Regarding claim 27, Farahmand, in view of Adimula, discloses the wheel system [100] of claim 1, as stated above. Adimula does not disclose that the cavity [18c] surrounds the stator along a perimeter and along at least two opposing axial sides of the stator [14].
Dijken discloses a motor [100] comprising a cooling vessel [110A,110B] defining a cavity [112] (fig. 1; ¶ 0051-0052), wherein the cavity [112] surrounds the stator [104] along a perimeter and along at least two opposing axial sides of the stator [104] (fig. 1; the cavity fully encloses the stator).
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 cooling vessel and cavity of Adimula fully encompassing the stator to the outside as taught by Dijken, in order to increase heat transfer from the stator thereby improving motor efficiency (¶ 0016 of Dijken).
Regarding claim 28, Farahmand, in view of Adimula, discloses the wheel system [100] of claim 1, as stated above. Adimula does not disclose that the stator [14] is disposed entirely within the cavity.
Dijken discloses a motor [100] comprising a cooling vessel [110A,110B] defining a cavity [112] (fig. 1; ¶ 0051-0052), wherein the stator [104] is disposed entirely within the cavity [112] (fig. 1; the cavity fully encloses the stator).
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 cooling vessel and cavity of Adimula fully encompassing the stator to the outside as taught by Dijken, in order to increase heat transfer from the stator thereby improving motor efficiency (¶ 0016 of Dijken).
Regarding claim 32, Farahmand, in view of Adimula, discloses the wheel system [100] of claim 1, as stated above. Adimula does not disclose that the cooling vessel [18] comprises a thermally conductive metal body.
Dijken discloses a motor [100] comprising a cooling vessel [110A,110B] defining a cavity [112] (fig. 1; ¶ 0051-0052), wherein the cooling vessel [110A,110B] comprises a thermally conductive metal body (¶ 0015, 0051; the vessel, formed by the rotor, is made of a “ferromagnetic material”, i.e. a metal containing iron).
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 cooling vessel of Adimula from a thermally conductive metal body as taught by Dijken, in order to increase heat transfer from the stator to the outside thereby improving motor efficiency (¶ 0016 of Dijken).
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Prior art:
Ishihara et al. (US 2006/0113851 A1) discloses a motor comprising a stator, a rotor, and a cooling vessel containing a liquid coolant.
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
Prosecution Insights