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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/3/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9: “disposed around the cylindrical rotor… (c) a cylindrical rotor” should read --disposed around the cylindrical rotor… (c) the cylindrical rotor --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 1, 3-4, 8-9, 11, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US 2023/0010555) in view of Leonardi et al. (US 2022/0216743).
In claim 1, Tang teaches a cooling system (Fig. 1-3) for an electrical winding ([0020]), comprising:(a) a winding channel (222A) in communication with the winding (220; [0020]); (b) a coolant, having a liquid state and a gaseous state (226; [0031]), that passes through the channel (222A) so that the coolant (226) is in contact with at least a portion of the electrical winding (220), the coolant (226) having a heat of evaporation such that at least a portion of the coolant evaporates as the coolant absorbs heat from the electrical winding (220; [0044]); and (d) a heat exchanger (208) that cools the coolant (226) after the coolant (226) has passed through the channel (222A) so as to condense the coolant (226) into the liquid state ([0043-0044]).
Tang does not teach (a) a winding liner that includes at least one wall that defines a plurality of channels that are in communication with the winding, (c) a delivery mechanism that delivers the coolant to the channels.
However, Leonardi teaches (Fig. 1-8) (a) a winding liner (450) that includes at least one wall (inner wall of 450) that defines a plurality of channels (454; Fig. 7B) that are in communication with the winding (456), and (c) a delivery mechanism (214; [0031]) that delivers the coolant to the channels (454).
Therefore in view of Leonardi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to enhance in slot coolant flow (Leonardi; [0040]).
In claim 3, Tang teaches the system of claim 1, with the exception of wherein the channels comprise micro-channels.
However, Leonardi further teaches wherein the channels (454) comprise micro-channels (Fig. 7B ; based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is understood that the channels are defined as microchannels, rather than channels themselves having microchannels, [0031]).
Therefore further in view of Leonardi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to enhance in slot coolant flow (Leonardi; [0040]).
In claim 4, Tang as modified teaches the system of claim 3, with the exception of wherein the micro-channels have dimensions that cause the coolant to wick through a portion of the micro-channels through capillary action.
However, Leonardi further teaches wherein the micro-channels (454) have dimensions that cause the coolant to wick through a portion of the micro-channels (454; Fig. 7B) through capillary action (through the resulting interactions of fluid forced between the windings and the microchannels [0040]).
Therefore further in view of Leonardi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to enhance in slot coolant flow (Leonardi; [0040]).
In claim 8, Tang as modified teaches the system of claim 1, with the exception of wherein the coolant flows between the winding and the liner so as to evaporate directly on an outer surface of the winding by absorbing heat therefrom.
However, Leonardi further teaches wherein the coolant flows between the winding (456) and the liner (450) so as to evaporate directly on an outer surface of the winding (456) by absorbing heat therefrom.
Therefore further in view of Leonardi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to provide direct cooling to the winding (Leonardi; [0040]).
In claim 9, Tang teaches an electric motor system (Fig. 1-3), comprising:(a) a shaft (212); (b) a stator (220) defining an inner cylindrical passage that is coaxial with and disposed around a cylindrical rotor (218), the stator (220) including a plurality of windings ([0020]) embedded in and evenly radially disposed in the stator (220), each winding having an inner end (inner end of 220; Fig. 2) that abuts the inner cylindrical passage;(c) the cylindrical rotor (218) disposed about the shaft (212) and complementary in shape to the inner cylindrical passage, (d) a winding channel (222A) in communication with the winding (220; [0020]); (e) a coolant, having a liquid state and a gaseous state (226; [0031]), that passes through the channel (222A) so that the coolant (226) is in contact with at least a portion of the electrical winding (220), the coolant (226) having a heat of evaporation such that at least a portion of the coolant evaporates as the coolant absorbs heat from the electrical winding (220; [0044]); and (f) a heat exchanger (208) that cools the coolant (226) after the coolant (226) has passed through the channel (222A) so as to condense the coolant (226) into the liquid state ([0043-0044]).
Tang does not teach the rotor including a plurality of permanent magnets disposed about the rotor, (d) a winding liner that includes at least one wall that defines a plurality of micro-channels that are in communication with the winding, (f) a delivery mechanism that delivers the coolant to the channels.
However, Leonardi teaches (Fig. 1-8) wherein rotor including a plurality of permanent magnets disposed about the rotor are typical in an electrical machine ([0020]), (d) a winding liner (450) that includes at least one wall (inner wall of 450) that defines a plurality of micro-channels (454; Fig. 7B) that are in communication with the winding (456), and (f) a delivery mechanism (214; [0031]) that delivers the coolant to the channels (454; Fig. 7B ; based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is understood that the channels are defined as microchannels, rather than channels themselves having microchannels, [0031]).
Therefore in view of Leonardi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to enhance in slot coolant flow (Leonardi; [0040]).
In claim 11, Tang as modified teaches the system of claim 9, with the exception of wherein the micro-channels have dimensions that cause the coolant to wick through a portion of the micro-channels through capillary action.
However, Leonardi further teaches wherein the micro-channels (454) have dimensions that cause the coolant to wick through a portion of the micro-channels (454) through capillary action (through the resulting interactions of fluid forced between the windings and the microchannels [0040]).
Therefore further in view of Leonardi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to enhance in slot coolant flow (Leonardi; [0040]).
In claim 15, Tang as modified teaches the system of claim 9, with the exception of wherein the coolant flows between the winding and the liner so as to evaporate directly on an outer surface of the winding by absorbing heat therefrom.
However, Leonardi further teaches wherein the coolant flows between the winding (456) and the liner (450) so as to evaporate directly on an outer surface of the winding (456) by absorbing heat therefrom.
Therefore further in view of Leonardi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to provide direct cooling to the winding (Leonardi; [0040]).
In claim 17, Tang teaches a method (Fig. 1-3) of cooling a winding (220; [0020]) in an electric motor, comprising the steps of: (a) having a channel (222A) that opens to the winding (220); (b) passing a coolant (226) through the channels (222A) to absorb heat from the winding (220), the coolant (226) having a liquid state and a gaseous state ([0031]), so that a portion of the coolant (226) changes from the liquid state to the gaseous state as the coolant (226) absorbs heat from the winding (220); and (c) removing heat from the coolant (226) after the coolant has passed through the channel (222A) so as to condense coolant (226) from the gaseous state to the liquid state.
Tang does not teach (a) placing a liner about the winding, the liner having a surface defining a plurality of micro-channels that open to the winding; (b) passing a coolant through the micro-channels to absorb heat from the winding.
However, Leonardi teaches (Fig. 1-20) (a) placing a liner (450) about the winding (452), the liner (450) having a surface defining a plurality of micro-channels (454) that open to the winding (452); (b) passing a coolant through the micro-channels (454) to absorb heat from the winding (452; Fig. 7B ; based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is understood that the channels are defined as microchannels, rather than channels themselves having microchannels, [0031])..
Therefore further in view of Leonardi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to enhance in slot coolant flow (Leonardi; [0040]).
Claim(s) 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US 2023/0010555) in view of Leonardi et al. (US 2022/0216743), and further in view of Markovitz et al. (US 5723920).
In claim 2, Tang as modified teaches the system of claim 1, with the exception of wherein the winding liner comprises PDMS.
However, Markovitz teaches wherein PMDS is utilized on windings for use in high voltage environments (Col. 3, ln. 8-35).
Therefore in view of Markovitz, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to provide insulation for the windings (Col. 1, ln. 18-30), and since 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.
In claim 10, Tang as modified teaches the system of claim 9, with the exception of wherein the winding liner comprises PDMS.
However, Markovitz teaches wherein PMDS is utilized on windings for use in high voltage environments (Col. 3, ln. 8-35).
Therefore in view of Markovitz, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to provide insulation for the windings (Col. 1, ln. 18-30), and since 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) 5-6 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US 2023/0010555) in view of Leonardi et al. (US 2022/0216743), and further in view of Dlala et al. (US 2021/0351642).
In claim 5, Tang as modified teaches the system of claim 1, with the exception of wherein the delivery system includes a pump.
However, Dlala teaches (Fig. 1-20) wherein the delivery system (1101) includes a pump (1125).
Therefore in view of Dlala, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to enable flow of the coolant through the system (Dlala; [0073]).
In claim 6, Tang as modified teaches the system of claim 5, with the exception of wherein the delivery system includes an accumulator and a phase separator that separates liquid coolant from gaseous coolant and delivers liquid coolant to the pump.
However, Dlala further teaches wherein the delivery system (1101) includes an accumulator (1119) and a phase separator (1123) that separates liquid coolant from gaseous coolant and delivers liquid coolant to the pump (1125).
Therefore further in view of Dlala, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to enable uniform flow of the coolant through the system (Dlala; [0073]).
In claim 12, Tang as modified teaches the system of claim 9, with the exception of a pump that moves coolant from the heat exchanger to the winding liners.
However, Dlala teaches a pump (1125) that moves coolant from the heat exchanger (1215) to the winding passage (1207).
Therefore in view of Dlala, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to enable flow of the coolant through the system (Dlala; [0073]).
In claim 13, Tang as modified teaches the system of claim 12, with the exception of wherein the system has an accumulator and a phase separator that separates liquid coolant from gaseous coolant and delivers liquid coolant to the pump.
However, Dlala further teaches wherein the system comprises an accumulator (1119) and a phase separator (1123) that separates liquid coolant from gaseous coolant and delivers liquid coolant to the pump (1125).
Therefore further in view of Dlala, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to enable uniform flow of the coolant through the system (Dlala; [0073]).
Claim(s) 7, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US 2023/0010555) in view of Leonardi et al. (US 2022/0216743), and further in view of Shedd et al. (US 2016/0120059).
In claim 7, Tang as modified teaches the system of claim 1, with the exception of wherein the coolant comprises a perfluorinated liquid coolant.
However, Shedd teaches wherein the coolant comprises a perfluorinated liquid coolant ([0344]).
Therefore in view of Shedd, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to provide a coolant suitable for direct contact with the windings ([0343]), and since 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.
In claim 14, Tang as modified teaches the system of claim 9, with the exception of wherein the coolant comprises a perfluorinated liquid coolant.
However, Shedd teaches wherein the coolant comprises a perfluorinated liquid coolant ([0344]).
Therefore in view of Shedd, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to provide a coolant suitable for direct contact with the windings ([0343]), and since 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.
In claim 21, Tang as modified teaches the method of claim 17, with the exception of wherein the coolant comprises a perfluorinated liquid coolant.
However, Shedd teaches wherein the coolant comprises a perfluorinated liquid coolant ([0344]).
Therefore in view of Shedd, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to provide a coolant suitable for direct contact with the windings ([0343]), and since 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) 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US 2023/0010555) in view of Leonardi et al. (US 2022/0216743), and further in view of Neal et al. (US 2008/0017354).
In claim 18, Tang as modified teaches the method of claim 17, with the exception of the step of fabricating the liner by generating a mold of the liner with the micro-channels using lithography and then casting PDMS into the mold.
However, Neal teaches wherein lithography can be utilized in combination with molding methods for intricate mold configurations quickly and inexpensively (Neal; [0068]).
Therefore in view of Neal, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to create intricate mold configurations quickly and inexpensively (Neal; [0068]).
The combination still does not teach casting PDMS into the mold.
However, Leonardi further teaches casting PDMS into the mold ([0040]).
Therefore further in view of Leonardi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to create an encased cooling structure (Leonardi; [0033]).
In claim 19, Tang as modified teaches the method of claim 17, with the exception of wherein having the step of fabricating the micro-channels so as to have dimensions that cause the coolant to wick through a portion of the micro-channels through capillary action.
However, Leonardi further teaches wherein the micro-channels (454) are fabricated have dimensions that cause the coolant to wick through a portion of the micro-channels (454) through capillary action.
Therefore further in view of Leonardi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to enhance in slot coolant flow (Leonardi; [0040]).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US 2023/0010555) in view of Leonardi et al. (US 2022/0216743), and further in view of Jore et al. (US 2021/0351658).
In claim 20, Tang as modified teaches the method of claim 17, with the exception of the step of fabricating the liner by a method selected from a list consisting of:nano-imprint lithography, diamond tooling creating via nickel electro form for stamping, embossing, laser drilling; chemical etching; employing wire EDM; and combinations thereof.
However, Jore teaches wire EDM manufacturing used as a means to preserve the shape of a stator component ([0059]).
Therefore Jore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order manufacture the liner while providing means to preserve the shape of said liner (Jore; [0059]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sercombe et al. (US 2020/0169136) teaches a winding system for use in an electrical, electronic or electromagnetic device or component including: one or more set of windings, each set of windings including an electrically-conductive element arranged in a winding pattern with multiple turns, at least one pair of adjacent turns of the multiple turns being spaced apart to provide at least one channel therebetween for coolant fluid to flow therethrough.
Bodla et al. (US 2018/0367011) teaches a method includes fabricating a core, wherein the core comprises a chemically soluble first polymer, forming a body around the core, wherein the body comprises a second polymer, and etching away the core to reveal a cooling channel extending through the body.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHAD H JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1231. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-5pm.
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, Christopher Koehler can be reached at 571-272-3560. 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.
RASHAD H. JOHNSON
Examiner
Art Unit 2834
/RASHAD H JOHNSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights