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 28 April 2026. In view of this communication, claims 1-16 are now pending in the application, with claims 13-16 being withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant's arguments, filed 28 April 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s first argument (page 5 of the Remarks) states, regarding the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), that claim 3 has been amended to depend from claim 2 in order to provide proper antecedent basis. Thus, said previous ground of rejection has been withdrawn.
The Applicant’s second argument (page 5 of the Remarks) alleges, regarding the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), that the amendment to claim 1 results in claims 11-12 being further limiting. No explanation is provided. Since claims 11-12 still recite no further limitations of the rotor or electric machine, respectively, of the claim upon which they depend, this argument is unpersuasive and said previous grounds of rejection are maintained.
The Applicant’s third argument (pages 6-7 of the Remarks) alleges, regarding the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102, that Park does not disclose “support 51” having “a layer of an elastomer” as recited in claim 1. However, this argument merely mischaracterizes the grounds of rejection, as wedge [50], not support [51] is equivalent to the recited wedge. Thus, support [51] is the elastomer layer, located on the outer side of the slot wedge [50] and bearing on the rotor winding [1] (fig. 5; ¶ 0075-0076 of Park). Since no argument or evidence is presented against the actual grounds of rejection made, this argument is unpersuasive and the previous grounds of rejection are maintained.
The Applicant’s fourth argument (pages 7-11 of the Remarks) alleges, regarding the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, that none of the secondary references (i.e. Knapp, Schafer, Knappenberger, or Doherty) cited in the rejections remedy the above-alleged deficiencies of Park. Since the previous argument was unpersuasive, this argument is moot and the previous grounds of rejection 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 13 March 2026 was/were filed after mailing of the first action on the merits. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. — Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph:
Subject to the [fifth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA )], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 11 recites an “electric machine with a rotor of claim 1”, but does not recite any additional limitations of said rotor. Thus, the claim does not further limit the subject matter, i.e. the rotor, of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 12 recites a “motor vehicle having an electric machine of claim 11”, but does not recite any additional limitations of said electric machine. Thus, the claim does not further limit the subject matter, i.e. the electric machine, of the claim upon which it depends.
The Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1, 4-5, 7, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2017/0353092 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Park”.
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a rotor [200] for an externally excited electric machine [100] of a motor vehicle (fig. 1-5; ¶ 0049-0050), the rotor [200] comprising:
an annular yoke [10y] with a yoke outer side [os] directed outward in the radial direction of the yoke [10y] (fig. 5; ¶ 0056-0059);
a plurality of pole teeth [11,15] on the yoke outer side [os], the plurality of pole teeth [11,15] are arranged and/or formed spaced apart from one another in the circumferential direction of the yoke [10y] (fig. 4-5; ¶ 0059-0062),
PNG
media_image1.png
454
1003
media_image1.png
Greyscale
each of the plurality of pole teeth [11,15] further comprising:
a pole shaft [11] (fig. 5; ¶ 0059); and
a pole shoe [15] (fig. 5; ¶ 0060-0062);
wherein the pole shaft [11] is formed between the yoke outer side [os] and the pole shoe [15] (fig. 4-5);
a rotor winding [1] arranged on each pole shaft [11] (fig. 5; ¶ 0059);
a slot wedge [50] arranged in a slot [13] between the rotor windings [1] of two adjacent pole teeth [11,15] (fig. 4-5; ¶ 0059, 0071-0075); and
a layer of an elastomer [51] on an outer side of the slot wedge [50], the layer of elastomer [51] facing the respective rotor winding [1], against which the rotor winding [1] bears at least partially and/or in portions (fig. 5; ¶ 0075-0076).
Regarding claim 4, Park discloses the rotor [200] of claim 1, as stated above, the slot wedge [50] further comprising a triangular and/or wedge-shaped base form in cross-section, and a tip of the wedge-shaped slot wedge [50] points in the direction of the yoke outer side [os] (fig. 5; ¶ 0076); and
a closed-edge opening [53] which runs through the slot wedge [50] in the longitudinal direction of the rotor [200], and the opening [53] is filled with an expandable material at least in portions (fig. 5; ¶ 0076, 0093; the opening is field with ”external air”, and air is expandable/compressible).
Regarding claim 5, Park discloses the rotor [200] of claim 4, as stated above, the closed-edge opening [53] further comprising a triangular cross-section (fig. 5; ¶ 0076).
Regarding claim 7, Park discloses the rotor [200] of claim 1, as stated above, the slot wedge [50] further comprising a slot wedge end [61], wherein the slot wedge end [61] bears at least in portions against a pole shoe [15] inner face (fig. 5; ¶ 0075-0079).
Regarding claim 11, Park discloses an electric machine [100] (fig. 1-5; ¶ 0049-0050) with a rotor [200] of claim 1, as stated above.
Regarding claim 12, Park discloses a motor vehicle (fig. 1-5; ¶ 0049-0050) having an electric machine [100] of claim 11, as stated above.
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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Knapp et al. (US 2013/0154431 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Knapp”.
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses the rotor [200] of claim 1, as stated above.
Park does not disclose the elastomer [51] further comprising a rubber material and/or comprises rubber at least in parts.
Knapp discloses an elastomer [530] facing a winding [520] within a slot [505] (fig. 5; ¶ 0033-0034), the elastomer [530] further comprising a rubber material and/or comprises rubber at least in parts (¶ 0035).
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 elastomer of Park from a rubber material as taught by Knapp, in order to provide good heat resistance that is useful in high-temperature applications (¶ 0035 of Knapp).
PNG
media_image2.png
393
728
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Park, in view of Knapp, discloses the rotor [200] of claim 2, as stated above, the rubber material further comprising an ethylene propylene diene rubber (¶ 0035 of Knapp) or a butyl rubber.
Claim(s) 6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Schafer et al. (US 3,242,239 A), hereinafter referred to as “Schafer”.
Regarding claim 6, Park discloses the rotor [200] of claim 1, as stated above.
Park does not disclose that the slot wedge [50] is made of plastic.
Schafer discloses a rotor [10] comprising slots [11] having windings [9] disposed therein (fig. 1-3; col. 2, line 70 to col. 3, line 6), further comprising a slot wedge [12] made of plastic (fig. 2-3; col. 3, lines 7-16; “polyurethane resin”, resin is a type of plastic).
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 slot wedge of Park from a plastic material as taught by Schafer, in order to provide the slot wedge with the desired flexibility and elasticity (col. 1, lines 55-70 of Schafer).
PNG
media_image3.png
502
760
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Park discloses the rotor [200] of claim 4, as stated above.
Park does not disclose the expandable material [air] further comprising a polyurethane foam.
Schafer discloses a rotor [10] comprising slots [11] having windings [9] disposed therein (fig. 1-3; col. 2, line 70 to col. 3, line 6), further comprising an expandable material [12] filling the slots [11], the expandable material [12] comprising a polyurethane foam (fig. 2-3; col. 3, lines 7-16; “foamed polyurethane resin”).
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 expandable material of Park from a polyurethane foam as taught by Schafer, in order to provide the slot wedge with the desired flexibility and elasticity (col. 1, lines 55-70 of Schafer).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Knappenberger et al. (DE 10 2019 217 464 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Knappenberger”.
Regarding claim 8, Park discloses the rotor [200] of claim 1, as stated above.
Park does not disclose that the slot wedge [50] has a widening on the side facing the yoke outer side [os], which at least in portions engages behind the inner side of the rotor winding [1] facing the yoke outer side [os].
Knappenberger discloses a rotor [1] comprising windings [11] disposed within slots [4], the slots [4] closed by a slot wedge [10] (fig. 4-5; ¶ 0021-0023), wherein the slot wedge [10] has a widening [10w] on the side facing the yoke outer side [1os], which at least in portions engages behind the inner side of the rotor winding [11] facing the yoke outer side [1os] (fig. 4-5; ¶ 0019).
PNG
media_image4.png
553
1331
media_image4.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 slot wedge of Park having a widening inside of the windings as taught by Knappenberger, in order to ensure proper insulation between the windings and the yoke while simplifying the production thereof (¶ 0004 of Knappenberger).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Doherty et al. (US 2003/0184180 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Doherty”.
Regarding claim 9, Park discloses the rotor [200] of claim 4, as stated above.
Park does not disclose the expandable material [air] further comprising one selected from the group consisting of a polymer and/or a plastic and/or a synthetic resin.
Doherty discloses a rotor [132] comprising slots having windings [306a-d] disposed therein (fig. 3-5; ¶ 0032-0033), further comprising a slot wedge [502,504,506] filled with an expandable material [“epoxy or resinous fluid”], the expandable material [“epoxy or resinous fluid”] further comprising one selected from the group consisting of a polymer and/or a plastic and/or a synthetic resin (¶ 0036).
PNG
media_image5.png
574
810
media_image5.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 expandable material of Park from a plastic/resin as taught by Doherty, in order to strengthen the wedge thereby allowing it to better withstand centrifugal loads (¶ 0036 of Doherty).
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Prior art:
Eckstein et al. (US 2021/0036571 A1) discloses a wound rotor comprising a triangular slot wedge with a closed-edge opening filled with an expandible material, said material comprising resin, thermoplastic, or thermoset plastic.
Lee et al. (US 2016/0072352 A1) discloses a wound rotor comprising a triangular slot wedge having an elastomer layer contacting the rotor windings.
Harris (US 3,986,253) discloses a wound rotor comprising an expandible material, said material comprising polymeric resin adhesive foam.
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