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 05 March 2026. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed: claims 1-10 were previously pending, with claims 6-9 being withdrawn from consideration; claims 11-15 were added by the amendment; and thus, claims 1-15 are now pending in the application, with claims 6-9 being withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed 05 March 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s first argument (pages 8-10 of the Remarks) alleges that Roux does not disclose the amended limitations of claim 1, particularly the coolant being directed “along an outer surface of the coolant conducting structure that faces away from the core stack”. Since the structure of Roux only directs the coolant using a surface facing toward the core stack, this argument is persuasive and the previous grounds of rejection in view of Roux have been withdrawn.
The Applicant’s second argument (page 10 of the Remarks) alleges that Farkas, previously applied only to claim 4, does not cure the alleged deficiencies of Roux. The argument does not provide any specific explanation, or evidence, regarding the Farkas reference, however. Farkas, as cited below, does disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, including the new limitations, as well as most of the dependent claims. As such, new grounds of rejection have been made below.
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 § 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)(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) 1-5, 10-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Farkas et al. (US 2024/0322648 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Farkas”.
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
PNG
media_image1.png
613
936
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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), and
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).
Regarding claim 2, Farkas 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), and/or 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).
Regarding claim 3, Farkas 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 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 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 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 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 discloses the rotor [5] according to claim 1, as stated above, 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 [17], 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] is formed as a ring that surrounds the rotor shaft [7], such that 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).
Regarding claim 13, Farkas 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).
Regarding claim 15, Farkas discloses the rotor [5] according to claim 14, as stated above, 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; surface [17] is radially inside the core outer surface).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farkas in view of Horii et al. (US 2016/0261158 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Horii”.
Regarding claim 14, Farkas 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_image2.png
444
730
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 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.
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.
Miyamoto et al. (US 2013/0221772 A1) discloses a rotor with axial coolant passages directing coolant to be spun off radially outwardly onto the stator.
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