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 09 July 2026. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed: claims 1-15 are now pending in the application, with claims 6-9 being withdrawn from consideration.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09 July 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed 09 July 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s first argument (pages 9-10 of the Remarks) alleges that claim 1 and its dependent claims are now allowable because Farkas does not disclose the amended limitation reciting “the spin-off edge is a rounded edge”. While this amendment does overcome the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102, it does not place the application in condition for allowance as rounded spin-off edges were known in the art. Both Samie (fig. 5) and Miyamoto (fig. 3), previously cited, disclose coolant conducting structures having rounded spin-off edges. As such, new grounds of rejection have been made below under 35 U.S.C. 103 citing Farkas in view of Miyamoto. Further, it is noted that the new limitation recites only the shape of the spin-off edge, and it has been held that a mere change in shape of a particular component of a device is a matter of design choice involving only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
The Applicant’s second argument (pages 10-11 of the Remarks) alleges that Horii does not disclose the coolant conducting structure being located “radially outside the at least one coolant outlet” as recited in claim 15 as amended. Firstly, this allegation is entirely untrue. The outermost portion of the coolant conducting structures [25,29] is located radially outside the outlets [27] (fig. 1; ¶ 0027; the outlets are formed as holes in the end plates). Secondly, the proposed modification involves only reducing the outer diameter of the coolant conducting structure of Farkas to a smaller diameter as taught by Horii. This modification in no way negates the teaching in Farkas of the coolant conducting structure [10,12] being located radially outside the outlets [11] (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0035-0043). In response to the Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, this argument is unpersuasive and the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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) 1-5 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farkas et al. (US 2024/0322648 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Farkas”, in view of Miyamoto et al. (US 2013/0221772 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Miyamoto”.
Regarding claim 1, Farkas discloses a rotor [5] for an electric machine [1] (fig. 1-4; ¶ 0030-0032), the rotor [5] comprising:
a rotor shaft [7] (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0033);
a core stack [6] fastened to the rotor shaft [7] (fig. 2; ¶ 0033);
at least one coolant outlet [11] being provided at an axial end-face side of the core stack [6] (fig. 1; ¶ 0035); and
a coolant conducting structure [10,12] for centrifugal cooling of winding heads [4] of a stator [2] of the electric machine [1], the coolant conducting structure [10,12] being provided at the axial end-face side of the core stack [6], via which coolant exiting from the at least one coolant outlet [11] is spun off radially outwardly in a direction of the winding heads [4] as a result of centrifugal force (fig. 1-4; ¶ 0036-0043),
wherein the coolant conducting structure [10,12] is designed as a single-material part that is molded onto the axial end face side of the core stack [6], such that the coolant conducting structure [10,12] is integrated with the axial end face side of the core stack [6] and protrudes from the axial end face side of the core stack [6] in a direction away from the core stack [6] (fig. 2; ¶ 0021, 0036-0038),
PNG
media_image1.png
613
936
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, since an inner surface of the coolant conducting structure [10,12] that faces the core stack [6] is molded to the axial end face side of the core stack [6], the coolant exiting from the at least one coolant outlet [11] is directed towards the winding heads [4] along an outer surface of the coolant conducting structure [10,12] that faces away from the core stack [6] (fig. 2; ¶ 0042-0043),
wherein the coolant conducting structure [10,12] is at least one guide web [12] that protrudes from the axial end-face side of the core stack [6] with a profile height up to a spin-off edge, via which the coolant is spun off radially outwardly in the direction of the winding heads [4] (fig. 2; ¶ 0037-0038, 0042-0043),
wherein the at least one guide web [12] has a radially inner side positioned closer to the rotor shaft [7] than a radially outer side thereof (fig. 1, 4), and
wherein the spin-off edge [17] is provided at the radially inner side of the at least one guide web [12] (fig. 2; ¶ 0042-0043).
Farkas does not disclose that the spin-off edge [17] is a rounded edge.
Miyamoto discloses a rotor [14] for a rotating electric machine [10] comprising a core stack [20] having a coolant conducting structure [36] (fig. 3; ¶ 0024-0025; 0036-0037), wherein the coolant conducting structure [36] is a guide web [36a] that protrudes from the axial end-face side of the core stack [20] with a profile height up to a spin-off edge [36e], and the spin-off edge [36e] is a rounded edge (fig. 3; ¶ 0043-0046; the tip of the structure is shown as a rounded triangle).
PNG
media_image2.png
607
910
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 spin-off edge of Farkas having a rounded shape as taught by Miyamoto, in order to optimize the direction by which oil is sprayed radially outward by centrifugal force thereby ensuring that the coolant does not enter the air gap and contributing to a reduction in drag loss (¶ 0046 of Miyamoto).
Regarding claim 2, Farkas, in view of Miyamoto, discloses the rotor [5] according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein at least one coolant channel [11] that opens axially outwardly at the at least one coolant outlet [11] passes through the core stack [6] in the axial direction (fig. 1; ¶ 0035).
Regarding claim 3, Farkas, in view of Miyamoto, discloses the rotor [5] according to claim 2, as stated above, wherein the at least one guide web [12] is situated radially outside the at least one coolant outlet [11] (fig. 1), and/or wherein the at least one guide web [12] is in radial alignment with the at least one coolant outlet [11] or the at least one guide web [12] surrounds the rotor shaft [7] in a continuous circle (fig. 1, 4).
Regarding claim 4, Farkas, in view of Miyamoto, discloses the rotor [5] according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the coolant conducting structure [10,12] is at least partially formed from a plastic casting compound [10] that is molded onto the core stack [6] axial end-face side of the core stack [6] (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0030-0039), and wherein the coolant conducting structure [10,12] additionally includes a reinforcing element [carbon fiber] that is at least partially encapsulated by the plastic casting compound [10] (¶ 0019).
Regarding claim 5, Farkas, in view of Miyamoto, discloses the rotor [5] according to claim 4, as stated above, wherein, in a process for manufacturing the rotor [5], the core stack [6] is castable in a casting process by use of the plastic casting compound [10] (¶ 0036-0038; the plastic fixing compound is filled around the permanent magnets then, it is implied, hardened into the encircling ring; it is noted that, while the above limitations are disclosed by Farkas, these limitations relate only to the method by which the rotor is formed and do not imply any additional structural limitations).
Regarding claim 10, Farkas, in view of Miyamoto, discloses an electric machine [1] comprising:
a radially inner rotor [5] according to claim 1, as stated above; and
a stator housing at whose inner side a stator [2] is fastened, the stator [2] cooperating with the radially inner rotor [5] (fig. 2; ¶ 0031-0032; while not shown, a housing is implicitly disclosed on the outside of the external “fixed stator”),
wherein arranged axially on each side of the rotor/stator arrangement [5,2] is a winding head space into which winding heads [4] protrude from stator windings, the winding heads [4] protruding beyond the axial end-face side of the core stack [6] of the rotor [5] with an overlength (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Farkas, in view of Miyamoto, discloses the rotor [5] according to claim 2, as stated above, wherein the at least one coolant channel [11], that opens axially outwardly at the at least one coolant outlet [11], is separate from an axial opening of the core stack [6] through which the rotor shaft [7] extends (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Farkas, in view of Miyamoto, discloses the rotor [5] according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the at least one guide web [12] is formed as a ring that surrounds the rotor shaft [7] (fig. 2; ¶ 0042-0043).
Regarding claim 13, Farkas, in view of Miyamoto, discloses the rotor [5] according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein, with respect to a radial direction, the at least one coolant outlet [11] is positioned between the rotor shaft [7] and the coolant conducting structure [10,12] (fig. 1, 4; ¶ 0042-0043).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farkas and Miyamoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Horii et al. (US 2016/0261158 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Horii”.
Regarding claim 14, Farkas, in view of Miyamoto, discloses the rotor [5] according to claim 1, as stated above. Farkas does not disclose that, with respect to a radial direction, the coolant conducting structure [10,12] is spaced apart from an outer circumferential surface of the core stack [6] (fig. 1-4; the structure is located on the outer circumference of the core).
Horii discloses a rotor [11] for a rotating electric machine [100] comprising a core stack [13] having a coolant conducting structure [25,29] (fig. 1; ¶ 0018-0020, 0027-0029), wherein, with respect to a radial direction, the coolant conducting structure [25,29] is spaced apart from an outer circumferential surface of the core stack [13] (fig. 1; the outer circumferential surfaces of the end plates are shown located at a smaller radius than the outer circumferential surface of the rotor core).
PNG
media_image3.png
444
730
media_image3.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 coolant conducting structure of Farkas having a smaller radius than the rotor core as taught by Horii, in order to provide a smaller air gap between the rotor and stator core while allowing additional clearance between the coolant conducting structure and the winding heads, thereby increasing magnetic flux density while avoiding potential interference.
Further, it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art device and the claimed device is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the claimed device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the prior art device with the relative dimensions claimed. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farkas in view of Horii.
Regarding claim 15, Farkas discloses a rotor [5] for an electric machine [1] (fig. 1-4; ¶ 0030-0032), the rotor [5] comprising:
a rotor shaft [7] (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0033);
a core stack [6] fastened to the rotor shaft [7] (fig. 2; ¶ 0033);
at least one coolant outlet [11] being provided at an axial end-face side of the core stack [6] (fig. 1; ¶ 0035); and
a coolant conducting structure [10,12] for centrifugal cooling of winding heads [4] of a stator [2] of the electric machine [1], the coolant conducting structure [10,12] being provided at the axial end-face side of the core stack [6], via which coolant exiting from the at least one coolant outlet [11] is spun off radially outwardly in a direction of the winding heads [4] as a result of centrifugal force (fig. 1-4; ¶ 0036-0043),
wherein the coolant conducting structure [10,12] is designed as a single-material part that is molded onto the axial end face side of the core stack [6], such that the coolant conducting structure [10,12] is integrated with the axial end face side of the core stack [6] and protrudes from the axial end face side of the core stack [6] in a direction away from the core stack [6] (fig. 2; ¶ 0021, 0036-0038),
PNG
media_image1.png
613
936
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, since an inner surface of the coolant conducting structure [10,12] that faces the core stack [6] is molded to the axial end face side of the core stack [6], the coolant exiting from the at least one coolant outlet [11] is directed towards the winding heads [4] along an outer surface of the coolant conducting structure [10,12] that faces away from the core stack [6] (fig. 2; ¶ 0042-0043),
wherein, with respect to the radial direction, the coolant conducting structure [10,12] is positioned closer to the rotor shaft [7] than the outer circumferential surface of the core stack [6] (fig. 1-2; surface [17] is radially inside the core outer surface), and
wherein the coolant conducting structure [10,12] is molded to the axial end face side of the core stack [6] at a position that is radially outside the at least one coolant outlet [11], such that in the radial direction, the at least one coolant outlet [11] is positioned closer to the rotor shaft [7] than the coolant conducting structure [10,12] (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0042-0043).
Farkas does not disclose that, with respect to a radial direction, the coolant conducting structure [10,12] is spaced apart from an outer circumferential surface of the core stack [6] (fig. 1-4; the structure is located on the outer circumference of the core).
Horii discloses a rotor [11] for a rotating electric machine [100] comprising a core stack [13] having a coolant conducting structure [25,29] (fig. 1; ¶ 0018-0020, 0027-0029), wherein, with respect to a radial direction, the coolant conducting structure [25,29] is spaced apart from an outer circumferential surface of the core stack [13] (fig. 1; the outer circumferential surfaces of the end plates are shown located at a smaller radius than the outer circumferential surface of the rotor core).
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 coolant conducting structure of Farkas having a smaller radius than the rotor core as taught by Horii, in order to provide a smaller air gap between the rotor and stator core while allowing additional clearance between the coolant conducting structure and the winding heads, thereby increasing magnetic flux density while avoiding potential interference.
Further, it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art device and the claimed device is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the claimed device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the prior art device with the relative dimensions claimed. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Prior art:
Vanhee et al. (US 2023/0261536 A1) discloses a rotor with axial coolant passages and a coolant conducting structure directing coolant to be spun off radially outwardly onto the stator end windings.
Siepker et al. (US 2023/0179051 A1) discloses a rotor with coolant passages and a coolant conducting structure directing coolant to be spun off radially outwardly.
Lux et al. (US 2021/0351648 A1) discloses a rotor with axial coolant passages and a coolant conducting structure directing coolant to be spun off radially outwardly onto the stator end windings.
Samie et al. (US 2021/0135533 A1) discloses a rotor with axial coolant passages and a coolant conducting structure directing coolant to be spun off radially outwardly onto the stator end windings, including a rounded spin-off edge.
Krais et al. (US 2020/0036248 A1) discloses a rotor with axial coolant passages and a coolant conducting structure.
Fröhlich et al. (US 2019/0027987 A1) discloses a rotor with spiral coolant passages and a coolant conducting structure directing coolant to be spun off radially outwardly onto the stator end windings.
Watanabe et al. (US 2016/0301268 A1) discloses a rotor with axial coolant passages and a coolant conducting structure directing coolant to be spun off radially outwardly onto the stator end windings.
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