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 .
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.
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, 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanHee et al. (US 2023/0261536 A1, hereinafter VanHee) in view of Goldstein (US 2019/0260259 A1) .
As to claim 1, VanHee shows (FIG. 2) An electric machine 100 comprising:
a shaft 124 defining an axial fluid passage 160 and a radial orifice 170 extending from the fluid passage 160 to an outer circumferential surface of the shaft 124;
a rotor 104 supported on the shaft 124, the rotor 104 including:
a stack of laminations defining a rotor core 140,
an axial fluid channel 207 defined in the rotor core 140 and in fluid communication with the orifice 170 and fluid passage 160 (para [0037]).
VanHee does not show a plurality of fins each extending from the rotor core into the fluid passage such that the fins axially extend along at least a portion of the axial fluid channel.
Goldstein shows a plurality of fins 128 each extending from the rotor core into the fluid passage 126 such that the fins 128 axially extend along at least a portion of the axial fluid channel 126 (FIG. 3, 3A, para [0018],[0022],[0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotor 104 of VanHee to have a plurality of fins 128 each extending from the rotor core 140 into the fluid passage 207 such that the fins 128 axially extend along at least a portion of the axial fluid channel 207 as taught by Goldstein, for the advantageous benefit of facilitating heat transfer from the rotor core 140 to the axial fluid channels 207 as taught by Goldstein (para [0023]).
As to claim 2/1, VanHee in view of Goldstein was discussed above with respect to claim 1, and VanHee further shows (FIG. 2):
PNG
media_image1.png
663
919
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the axial fluid channel 207 includes an outboard surface E and an inboard surface F,
VanHee does not show the fins are disposed on the outboard surface and the inboard surface is without fins.
As to claim 3/1, VanHee in view of Goldstein was discussed above with respect to claim 1 except for the fins are integrally formed with the laminations.
Goldstein shows the fins 128 are integrally formed with the laminations 114 (FIG. 3, 3A, para [0018],[0022],[0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotor 104 of VanHee in view of Goldstein to have the fins 128 are integrally formed with the laminations as taught by Goldstein, for the advantageous benefit of facilitating heat transfer from the rotor core 140 to the axial fluid channels 207 as taught by Goldstein (para [0023]).
As to claim 8/1, VanHee in view of Goldstein was discussed above with respect to claim 1, and VanHee further shows the axial fluid channel 207 is a plurality of axial fluid channels 207 circumferentially arranged around the rotor 104 (openings 356 in plate 301 correspond to the channels 207 para [0053]).
As to claim 9/1, VanHee in view of Goldstein was discussed above with respect to claim 1, and VanHee further shows (FIG. 2 above) the rotor core 140 includes an inner circumferential surface S2 disposed on the shaft 124 and an outer circumferential surface S1, wherein the axial fluid channel 207 is radially disposed between the inner S2 and outer S1 surfaces of the rotor core 140.
As to claim 10/9/1, VanHee in view of Goldstein was discussed above with respect to claim 1, and VanHee further shows (FIG. 2 above) the inner surface S2 defines an opening 175 connecting the axial fluid channel 160 in fluid communication with the orifice 170.
As to claim 11/1, VanHee in view of Goldstein was discussed above with respect to claim 1, and VanHee further shows (FIG. 2 above) a stator 102 circumscribing the rotor 104.
As to claim 12/1, VanHee in view of Goldstein was discussed above with respect to claim 1, and VanHee further shows (FIG. 2 above) the rotor 104 further includes a pair of end rings 150.
VanHee does not show the rotor core defines a plurality of slots, and wherein the rotor further includes a pair of end rings and conductor bars connected between the end rings and disposed in the slots to form a squirrel cage.
Nakamura shows (FIG. 1) the rotor core 16 defines a plurality of slots 18, and wherein the rotor 10 further includes a pair of end rings 22 and conductor bars 20 connected between the end rings 22 and disposed in the slots 18 to form a squirrel cage (col. 3:55-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotor 104 of VanHee in view of Goldstein to have the rotor core 140 defines a plurality of slots 18, and wherein the rotor 104 further includes conductor bars 20 connected between the end rings 150 and disposed in the slots 18 to form a squirrel cage as taught by Nakamura, for the advantageous benefit of having a cage rotor that rotates at high speed with high structural reliability as taught by Nakamura (col.3:20-30).
Claim(s) 13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanHee et al. (US 2023/0261536 A1, hereinafter VanHee) in view of Matsumoto (US 2020/0235620 A1).
As to claim 13, VanHee shows (FIG. 2 above) A rotor 104 of an electric machine 100 comprising:
a rotor core 140 including a central set C of laminations disposed between first A and second B outer sets of laminations, wherein each of the first A and second B outer sets of laminations defines an axial fluid channel 207 that has an outboard surface E and an inboard surface F, and the central set C of laminations defines a fluid plenum having an outboard surface that is radially spaced from a central axis 125 of the rotor core 140 by a distance and a distance between the central axis 125 and the outboard surfaces EA, EB of the axial fluid channels 207 of the first A and second B outer sets of laminations (para [0037]).
VanHee does not show an outboard surface that is radially spaced from a central axis of the rotor core by a distance that is greater than a distance between the central axis and the outboard surfaces of the axial fluid channels of the first and second outer sets of laminations.
Matsumoto shows (FIG. 2):
PNG
media_image2.png
629
691
media_image2.png
Greyscale
an outboard surface EC that is radially spaced from a central axis A of the rotor core by a distance that is greater than a distance between the central axis A and the outboard surfaces EA, EB of the first LA and second LB outer sets of laminations (FIG. 2, 4, 5, 6, para [0034] to [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotor 104 of VanHee to have an outboard surface EC that is radially spaced from a central axis 125 of the rotor core 140 by a distance that is greater than a distance between the central axis and the outboard surfaces EA,EB of the axial fluid channels 207 of the first A and second B outer sets of laminations as taught by Matsumoto, for the advantageous benefit of reducing pumping effects in the laminations caused by rotor rotation as taught by VanHee (para [0041] discusses enlarging the radial channels 175 with a cylindrical spacer).
As to claim 18, VanHee shows (FIG. 2 above) An electric machine 100 comprising:
a rotor core 140 including:
a central portion C having an outer circumferential surface S1 and an inner circumferential surface EC, the inner surface EC defining a fluid plenum 175 recessed therein and extending completely through an axial thickness of the central portion C, wherein the fluid plenum 175 has an outboard surface EC spaced from a central axis 125 of the rotor core by a first distance,
a first end portion A axially thicker than the central portion C and disposed against a first end face of the central portion C, the first end portion A having an outer circumferential surface S1, an inner circumferential surface S2, and a first axial fluid channel 207 disposed therebetween, the first axial fluid channel 207 having an outboard surface EA spaced from the central axis 125 of the rotor core 140 by a second distance, and
a second end portion B axially thicker than the central portion C and disposed against a second end face of the central portion C such that the central portion C is disposed between the first A and second B end portions, the second end portion B having an outer circumferential surface S1, an inner circumferential surface S2, and a second axial fluid channel 207 disposed therebetween, the second axial fluid channel 207 having an outboard surface EB spaced from the central axis 125 of the rotor core 140 by a third distance,
wherein, the plenum 175 is circumferentially aligned with the first and second fluid channels 207 forming a continuous opening extending axially through the rotor core 140.
VanHee does not show the second distance that is less than the first distance and the third distance that is less than the first distance.
Matsumoto shows (FIG. 2 above) the second distance EA that is less than the first distance EC and the third distance EB that is less than the first distance EC.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotor 104 of VanHee to have the second distance EA that is less than the first distance EC and the third distance EB that is less than the first distance EC as taught by Matsumoto, for the advantageous benefit of reducing pumping effects in the laminations caused by rotor rotation as taught by VanHee (para [0041] discusses enlarging the radial channels 175 with a cylindrical spacer).
As to claim 19/18, VanHee in view of Matsumoto was discussed above with respect to claim 18 and VanHee further shows (FIG. 2 above) the inner circumferential surfaces of the portions A, B, C define a central hole with a discontinuous sidewall at the plenum 175, and further comprising a shaft 124 coaxial with the central axis 125 and received through the central hole to couple with the rotor core 140, the shaft 124 defining an axial fluid passage 160 and a radial orifice 170 extending from the fluid passage 160 to the plenum 175.
As to claim 20/18, VanHee in view of Matsumoto was discussed above with respect to claim 18 and VanHee further shows (FIG. 2 above) the first axial fluid channel 160 further has an inboard surface that is radially spaced from the inner circumferential surface S2 of the first end portion A.
Claim(s) 14, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanHee et al. (US 2023/0261536 A1, hereinafter VanHee) in view of Matsumoto (US 2020/0235620 A1) and Goldstein (US 2019/0260259 A1).
As to claim 14/13, VanHee in view of Matsumoto was discussed above with respect to claim 13 except for the laminations of the first and second outer sets define tabs projecting into their corresponding axial fluid channel.
Goldstein shows the laminations 114 of the first and second outer sets define tabs 128 projecting into their corresponding axial fluid channel 126 (FIG. 3, 3A, para [0018],[0022],[0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotor 104 of VanHee in view of Matsumoto to have the laminations A, B of the first and second outer sets define tabs 128 projecting into their corresponding axial fluid channel 207 as taught by Goldstein, for the advantageous benefit of facilitating heat transfer from the rotor core 140 to the axial fluid channels 207 as taught by Goldstein (para [0023]).
As to claim 16/14/13, VanHee in view of Matsumoto and Goldstein was discussed above with respect to claim 14 except for at least some of the tabs are circumferentially staggered relative to other ones of the tabs.
Goldstein shows at least some of the tabs 128 are circumferentially staggered relative to other ones of the tabs 128 (multiple fins 128 are distributed in each channel 126 in each lamination FIG. 3, 3A, para [0018],[0022],[0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotor 104 of VanHee in view of Matsumoto and Goldstein to have at least some of the tabs 128 are circumferentially staggered relative to other ones of the tabs 128 as taught by Goldstein, for the advantageous benefit of facilitating heat transfer from the rotor core 140 to the axial fluid channels 207 as taught by Goldstein (para [0023]).
As to claim 17/13, VanHee in view of Matsumoto was discussed above with respect to claim 13 except for the first outer set of laminations includes a first type of lamination having first tabs projecting into the axial fluid channel and a second type of lamination having second tabs projecting into the axial fluid channel, wherein the first and second tabs are located at different circumferential positions of the rotor core and the first and second types of laminations alternate along the length of the first set such that the tabs form staggered fins disposed in the axial fluid channel.
Goldstein shows the first outer set of laminations 114 includes a first type of lamination having first tabs 128 projecting into the axial fluid channel 126 and a second type of lamination having second tabs 128 projecting into the axial fluid channel 126, wherein the first and second tabs 128 are located at different circumferential positions of the rotor core and the first and second types of laminations alternate along the length of the first set such that the tabs 128 form staggered fins 128 disposed in the axial fluid channel 126 (multiple fins 128 are distributed in each channel 126 in each lamination FIG. 3, 3A, para [0018],[0022],[0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotor 104 of VanHee in view of Matsumoto the first outer set of laminations 114 includes a first type of lamination having first tabs 128 projecting into the axial fluid channel 126 and a second type of lamination having second tabs 128 projecting into the axial fluid channel 126, wherein the first and second tabs 128 are located at different circumferential positions of the rotor core and the first and second types of laminations alternate along the length of the first set such that the tabs 128 form staggered fins 128 disposed in the axial fluid channel 126 as taught by Goldstein, for the advantageous benefit of facilitating heat transfer from the rotor core 140 to the axial fluid channels 207 as taught by Goldstein (para [0023]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 15 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: the prior art does not show or suggest laminations with fins and laminations without fins in combination with the other features recited in claims 1 and 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E MATES whose telephone number is (571)270-5293. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 12:00pm to 8pm.
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, TULSIDAS PATEL can be reached at (571)272-2098. 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.
/ROBERT E MATES/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights