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 13 July 2026. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed: claims 1-3, 6, 8, 14-16, 19, and 27-35 were previously pending; claims 27 and 33 were canceled and claim 36 was added by the amendment; and thus, claims 1-3, 6, 8, 14-16, 19, 28-32, and 34-36 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed 13 July 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s first argument (page 6 of the Remarks) simply states that the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are no longer valid because claims 27 and 33 have been canceled. As such, said grounds have been withdrawn.
The Applicant’s second argument (pages 6-8 of the Remarks) alleges, regarding the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 of claim 14, that Adimula does not disclose the amended limitations reciting the volume of the cavity surrounding the stator, particularly on its axial sides. While this is true of Adimula, these limitations were previously rejected in view of the Dijken reference as they appeared in claims 27 and 33, now canceled. Since no argument is made against those previous grounds of rejection, they have now been applied to independent claim 14.
The Applicant’s third argument (page 9 of the Remarks) alleges, regarding the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claim 33, that the rejection is no longer valid because the claim has been canceled. As stated above, this does not address the actual grounds of rejection, which are now applied to multiple claims, since Dijken teaches a cooling vessel and cavity surrounding all sides of a stator. Thus, these arguments are unpersuasive because they do not address the most relevant reference or the previous grounds of rejection thereof.
The Applicant’s fourth argument (pages 9-12 of the Remarks) alleges, regarding the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claim 1, that Farahmand and Adimula do not disclose the amended limitations reciting the volume of the cavity surrounding the stator, particularly on its axial sides. While this is true of Farahmand and Adimula, these limitations were previously rejected in view of the Dijken reference as they appeared in claims 27 and 33, now canceled. Since no argument is made against those previous grounds of rejection, they have now been applied to independent claim 1.
The Applicant’s fifth argument (page 12 of the Remarks) alleges, regarding the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claim 27, that the rejection is no longer valid because the claim has been canceled. As stated above, this does not address the actual grounds of rejection, which are now applied to multiple claims, since Dijken teaches a cooling vessel and cavity surrounding all sides of a stator. Thus, these arguments are unpersuasive because they do not address the most relevant reference or the previous grounds of rejection thereof.
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 § 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) 14-16, 19, and 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adimula et al. (US 2016/0285345 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Adimula”, in view of Dijken et al. (US 2023/0135457A1), hereinafter referred to as “Dijken”.
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] and includes a volume [18c] that extends between the stator [14] and an inside surface of the cooling vessel [18] (fig. 1, 3; ¶ 0008, 0017-0018; as disclosed in the specification, both the “cavity” and the “volume” refer to the interior space of the cooling vessel), the cooling vessel [18] being fixed relative to the stator [14] and in thermal contact with the stator [14] (fig. 1-3; ¶ 0010), the volume [18c] containing a heat storage material [30] configured to absorb heat from the stator [14] (fig. 3; ¶ 0013, 0018), wherein the cooling vessel [18] is configured to radiate heat away from the motor [10] (¶ 0010).
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] that at least partially surrounds a stator [104] and includes a volume [112] that extends between the stator [104] and an inside surface of the cooling vessel [110A,110B] (fig. 1; ¶ 0051-0052), the cooling vessel [110A,110B] being fixed relative to the stator [104] and in thermal contact with the stator [104] on a first axial side of the stator [104], a second axial side of the stator [104] opposite the first axial side, and a circumferential perimeter 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 15, Adimula, in view of Dijken, discloses the motor [10] of claim 14, as stated above, wherein the heat storage material [30] comprises a liquid (fig. 3; ¶ 0013, 0018).
Regarding claim 16, Adimula, in view of Dijken, 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, in view of Dijken, discloses the motor [10] of claim 14, as stated above, wherein the heat storage material [30] comprises a phase change material (¶ 0012-0014, 0018).
Regarding claim 34, Adimula, in view of Dijken, discloses the motor [10] of claim 14, as stated above, wherein Dijken further discloses that the stator [104] is disposed entirely within the cavity [112] (fig. 1; the cavity fully encloses the stator).
Regarding claim 35, Adimula, in view of Dijken, 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 that 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, 8, and 28-32 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 and Dijken.
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);
PNG
media_image3.png
681
516
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a stator [220] configured to magnetically interact with the rotor [210] (fig. 1B; ¶ 0030, 0034); and
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] and includes a volume [18c] that extends between the stator [14] and an inside surface of the cooling vessel [18] (fig. 1, 3; ¶ 0008, 0017-0018; as disclosed in the specification, both the “cavity” and the “volume” refer to the interior space of the cooling vessel), the cooling vessel [18] being fixed relative to the stator [14] and in thermal contact with the stator [14] (fig. 1-3; ¶ 0010), the volume [18c] containing a heat storage material [30] configured to absorb heat from the stator [14] (fig. 3; ¶ 0013, 0018), wherein the cooling vessel [18] is configured to radiate heat away from the motor [10] (¶ 0010).
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].
PNG
media_image4.png
667
362
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Dijken discloses a motor [100] comprising a cooling vessel [110A,110B] defining a cavity [112] that at least partially surrounds a stator [104] and includes a volume [112] that extends between the stator [104] and an inside surface of the cooling vessel [110A,110B] (fig. 1; ¶ 0051-0052), the cooling vessel [110A,110B] being fixed relative to the stator [104] and in thermal contact with the stator [104] on a first axial side of the stator [104], a second axial side of the stator [104] opposite the first axial side, and a circumferential perimeter 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).
And, 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/Dijken, 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 and Dijken, discloses the wheel system [100] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein Adimula further discloses that the heat storage material [30] comprises a liquid (fig. 3; ¶ 0013, 0018).
Regarding claim 3, Farahmand, in view of Adimula and Dijken, 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] (fig. 1-3; ¶ 0016-0018).
Regarding claim 8, Farahmand, in view of Adimula and Dijken, discloses the wheel system [100] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein Adimula further discloses heat fins [20] that extend from an exterior surface of 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 28, Farahmand, in view of Adimula and Dijken, discloses the wheel system [100] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein Dijken further discloses that the stator [104] is disposed entirely within the cavity [112] (fig. 1; the cavity fully encloses the stator).
Regarding claim 29, Farahmand, in view of Adimula and Dijken, 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 and Dijken, discloses the wheel system [100] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the heat storage material [30] is in thermal contact with the stator [14] (fig. 1-3; ¶ 0017-0018).
Regarding claim 31, Farahmand, in view of Adimula and Dijken, 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 perimeter of the stator [14] (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 32, Farahmand, in view of Adimula and Dijken, 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 6 and 36 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, and all claims dependent thereon, the prior art does not disclose, inter alia, the wheel system of claim 1, wherein the heat storage material comprises a phase change material configured to absorb heat from the stator by heating and melting, and wherein thermally conductive rods or metallic surface features extend from windings or a ferromagnetic core of the stator into the phase change material.
Regarding claim 36, and all claims dependent thereon, the prior art does not disclose, inter alia, the motor of claim 14, wherein the heat storage material comprises a phase change material configured to absorb heat from the stator by heating and melting, and wherein thermally conductive rods or metallic surface features extend from windings or a ferromagnetic core of the stator into the phase change material.
While the prior art discloses various arrangements of both the heat storage material and the surface features of the stator, it does not disclose the particular combination recited above, as shown in figure 3 of the application. Specifically, the prior art does not disclose both a solid heat storage material and rods/features extending from the stator windings/core to said solid heat storage material or any motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated such features. Thus, the prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious the invention recited above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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
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