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 . Claims 1-10 are pending of which claims 9-10 are withdrawn without traverse.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-8), in the reply filed on 12/23/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 objected to because of the following informalities:
The preamble in claims 1, 4, 6 and 8 should start with “A” and every corresponding subsequent dependent claim should start with “The.”
In claim 2, “an” should be used before “upstream” not “a.”
In claims 4-8, “deflector covers” should be replaced by “a deflector cover.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3, 5 and 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In Claims 3 and 5, the word “preferably” makes the claim indefinite because it’s not clear which of the two stated ranges is optional or required. In this Office action the limitation “preferably between 60% and 80%” is not given any patentability weight.
In claim 7, “an internal diameter or air passage equivalent” is indefinite. In this Office action the limitation, said phrase is interpreted as: “an internal diameter [[or]] of air passage equivalent.”
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.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buttner et al. (US 20230361652 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
517
719
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Buttner discloses a deflector cover (fig. 10) for rotating electric machine, characterized in that it comprises a suction region (suction region, annotated fig. 10) forming an annular crown (cover, annotated fig. 10) comprising: at least one body portion (body portion, annotated fig. 10) and a plurality of air passage openings (air passages, annotated fig. 10), through-going and distributed throughout the surface of the annular crown, forming a structure in the form of a perimeter grid (see fig. 10); and at least one radial opening (radial opening, annotated fig. 10) comprising a frame (frame, annotated fig. 10) with attachment points (attachment points, annotated fig. 10).
Regarding claim 2, Buttner discloses the deflector cover according to claim 1, characterized in
PNG
media_image2.png
372
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
that the suction region is axially adjacent to [[a]] an upstream rear coupling region (upstream rear coupling region, annotated fig. 2) and a downstream guiding region (downstream guiding region, annotated fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Buttner discloses a modular self-ventilated set for a deflector
PNG
media_image3.png
331
483
media_image3.png
Greyscale
an internal fan (fan, annotated fig. 1), an internal deflector (internal deflector, annotated fig. 1) and at least one protection grid (protection grid, annotated fig. 10), wherein the internal fan is coupled to a rotor shaft (see fig. 1) which draws in air through the suction region and ejects air out of the deflector cover through the air passage openings of the coupling piece towards the internal and/or external surface of a rotating electric machine (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Buttner discloses a rotating electric machine (fig. 1), characterized in that it comprises the modular self-ventilated set for deflector covers, defined in claim 4 (see discussion regarding claim 4), or the modular forced ventilation set for deflector covers, defined in claim 6, further comprising a rotor shaft (shaft, annotated fig. 1) and at least a coupling piece (coupling piece, annotated fig. 1).
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.
Claims 3 and 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buttner et al. (US 20230361652 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Buttner discloses the deflector cover according to claim 1, but does not disclose: characterized in that the added area of the air passage openings represents a total open area that is equivalent to a value between 40% and 80%,
Setting a proper area for the air passages is a design variable and setting a value for it is within the skills of a person having ordinary skills in the art depending on the cooling needs and robustness of the deflector cover.
For proper cooling of the electric motor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that: the added area of the air passage openings represents a total open area that is equivalent to a value between 40% and 80% of the total surface area value of the annular crown portion minus the open area of the radial opening.
Regarding claim 5, Buttner discloses the modular self-ventilated set for a deflector
Setting a proper area for the air passages is a design variable and it’s within the skills of a person having ordinary skills in the art depending on the cooling needs and robustness of the deflector cover.
For proper cooling of the electric motor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that: the total open area of the protection grid corresponds to a value between 40% and 80% of the total surface area value of the annular crown.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MASOUD VAZIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-2340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm EST..
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, the examiner’s supervisor, SEYE IWARERE can be reached on (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 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.
/MASOUD VAZIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834