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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-12, filed 12/16/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amendment and new prior art.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the notch-like structures of Juris would not create turbulence with in the coolant. Examiner disagrees. The notch-like structures can be easily made in the cooling channels, which would directly contact the coolants to create turbulences. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Also, Juris’s sealed-carrier concept is not relied upon. Thus, the argument is moot.
Streng’s insulators can still encapsulate and electrically insulate the conductors while having notch-like structures. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Streng does not disclose a coolant passage “bounded on one side by a face of the conductor.” Examiner disagrees. While the conductor is covered with insulator, the conductor still creates a boundary to create a gap (7) together with the insulator. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 15-18 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Streng (US 2025/0047178 A1) in view of Schulze (DE 10 2019 008 668 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Streng discloses a stator (2) for an electric motor (1), comprising:
a stator core (FIG. 3) defining a plurality of slots (3) circumferentially spaced about a circumference of the stator core;
a plurality of conductor assemblies (4) respectively disposed within the plurality of slots (3), each conductor assembly (4) extending lengthwise along the respective slot (3) and comprising:
a first conductor (4, top conductor in FIG. 3; see annotation below), a member (4, 2nd conductor below the top conductor in FIG. 3; see annotation below), and a first spacer (5; see annotation below) disposed between the first conductor (4, top conductor) and the member (4, 2nd conductor) such that the first spacer (5) supports and spaces the first conductor (4, top conductor) from the member (4, 2nd conductor), the first spacer (5) being spaced from circumferentially opposite walls of the slot (3) such that a first coolant passage (7, left; see annotation below) is defined between the first spacer (5) and one of said walls and a second coolant passage (7, right; see annotation below) is defined between the first spacer (5) and another of said walls for receiving a flow of liquid coolant therethrough (¶ [0022]), lengthwise along the slot (3), the first coolant passage (7, left) and the second coolant passage (7, right) being bounded radially by the first conductor (4, top conductor) such that coolant makes direct contact with a face of the first conductor (4, top conductor).
PNG
media_image1.png
342
439
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Streng does not disclose the first spacer being centrally disposed between circumferentially opposite walls of the slot and having a width in a circumferential direction that is substantially smaller than a circumferential width of the slot such that the first spacer is spaced from circumferentially opposite walls of the slot.
Schulze discloses the first spacer (20) being centrally disposed between circumferentially opposite walls of the slot (16) and having a width in a circumferential direction that is substantially smaller than a circumferential width of the slot (16) such that the first spacer (20) is spaced from circumferentially opposite walls of the slot 916; FIG. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Streng in view of Schulze to disclose the first spacer being centrally disposed between circumferentially opposite walls of the slot and having a width in a circumferential direction that is substantially smaller than a circumferential width of the slot such that the first spacer is spaced from circumferentially opposite walls of the slot, for the advantages of improved cooling and lower stress from lower fill factor.
Regarding claim 6/1, Streng in view of Schulze was discussed above in claim 1. Streng further discloses wherein the member (4, 2nd conductor) of each conductor assembly (4) comprises a second conductor (4, 2nd conductor; FIG. 3; see annotation above) and each conductor assembly (4) further comprises a second member (4, 3rd conductor below 2nd conductor in FIG. 3; see annotation above) and a second spacer (5; see annotation above) disposed between the second conductor (4, 2nd conductor) and the second member (4, 3rd conductor) such that the second spacer (5) supports and spaces the second conductor (4, 2ncd conductor) from the second member (4, 3rd conductor), the second spacer (5) being spaced from said walls of the slot (3) such that a third coolant passage (7, left; see annotation above) is defined between the second spacer (5) and one of said walls and a fourth coolant passage (7, right; see annotation above) is defined between the second spacer (5) and another of said walls for receiving a flow of liquid coolant therethrough (¶ [0022]), lengthwise along the slot (3), the third coolant passage (7, left) and the fourth coolant passage (7, right) being bounded radially by the second conductor (4, 2nd conductor) such that coolant makes direct contact with a face of the second conductor (4, 2nd conductor).
Regarding claim 15/1, Streng in view of Schulze was discussed above in claim 1. Streng further discloses the first spacer (6) has a non-circular cross-section selected from rectangular (FIG.3; rectangular), square, hexagonal, oval, or circular with flats.
Regarding claim 16/1, Streng in view of Schulze was discussed above in claim 1. Schulze further discloses the first spacer (20) is centrally disposed relative to circumferentially opposite walls of the slot (16) such that the first spacer (20) supports the first conductor (18) at or near a circumferential midpoint of the first conductor (18).
Regarding claim 17/1, Streng in view of Schulze was discussed above in claim 1. Schulze further discloses the member comprises a sealing wedge (32) or a closed- slot end wall of the stator core (14).
Streng in view of Schulze would disclose the first coolant passage and the second coolant passage are bounded radially between the first conductor and the sealing wedge or end wall, as Streng discloses a space between each conductor elements.
Regarding claim 18/1, Streng in view of Schulze was discussed above in claim 1. Schulze further discloses the first spacer (20) comprises an electrically insulating and non-magnetic material selected from engineered plastics, fiber-reinforced composites, and ceramics (made from plastic).
Regarding claim 23/1, Streng in view of Schulze was discussed above in claim 1. Streng further discloses the stator core is configured for resin treatment after insertion of the conductor assemblies (4) such that the resin bonds the spacers (6, 9), conductors (4), and stator core while maintaining the first and second coolant passages open for circulation of liquid coolant (¶ [0008] extrusion method).
Claims 2-5 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Streng (US 2025/0047178 A1) in view of Schulze (DE 10 2019 008 668 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Juris (US 2017/0237306 A1).
Regarding claim 2/1, Streng was discussed above in claim 1. Streng does not disclose wherein each of the first spacers defines turbulence generators for generating turbulence in the flow of liquid coolant.
Juris discloses bulkheads (16) defines turbulence generators (26) for generating turbulence in the flow of liquid coolant (¶ [0044]).
The notch-like structure 26 of Juris can be easily implemented into Streng to provide turbulence generators on the spacer to create turbulence in the flow of coolant.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Streng in view of Juris to disclose the first spacers defines turbulence generators for generating turbulence in the flow of liquid coolant, for the advantages of improving heat transfer between the winding and the cooling fluid (¶ [0044]).
Regarding claim 3/2, Streng in view of Juris was discussed above in claim 2. Juris further discloses wherein each of the bulkheads (16) includes axially spaced undulations (26; ¶ [0044]), the undulations (26) comprising said turbulence generators (26; FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 4/2, Streng in view of Juris was discussed above in claim 2. Juris further discloses wherein the turbulence generators (26) comprise projections (¶ [0044]) extending from circumferentially opposite sides of each of the bulkheads (16).
Regarding claim 5/4, Streng in view of Juris was discussed above in claim 4. Streng further discloses wherein each of the first spacers (5) extends linearly along the slot (3).
Regarding claim 19/2, Streng in view of Juris was discussed above in claim 2. Juris further discloses wherein the turbulence generators comprise undulations having a zigzag planform, a triangular waveform, a sine-type waveform, or a square waveform (FIG. 5; triangular and zigzag).
Regarding claim 20/4, Streng in view of Juris was discussed above in claim 4. Juris further discloses the projections comprise ridges extending in a radial thickness direction of the first spacer (FIG. 5 discloses radially extending ridges), discrete bumps or nubs arranged in an array, or a raised grid or mesh configured to increase large-scale surface roughness.
Claims 7-10 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Streng (US 2025/0047178 A1) in view of Juris (US 2017/0237306 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Streng discloses a stator (2) for an electric motor (1), comprising:
a stator core (FIG. 3) defining a plurality of slots (3) circumferentially spaced about a circumference of the stator core;
a conductor (4) extending lengthwise along each slot (3);
a coolant passage (7) extending lengthwise along each slot (3), the coolant passage (7) being bounded on one side by a face of the conductor (4).
Streng does not disclose a plurality of turbulence generators spaced along the coolant passage such that a flow of liquid coolant encounters the turbulence generators within the slot.
Juris discloses a plurality of turbulence generators (26) spaced along the coolant passage (25) such that a flow of liquid coolant encounters the turbulence generators (26) within the slot (13).
The notch-like structure 26 of Juris can be easily implemented into Streng to provide turbulence generators on the spacer to create turbulence in the flow of coolant.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Streng in view of Juris to disclose a plurality of turbulence generators spaced along the coolant passage such that a flow of liquid coolant encounters the turbulence generators within the slot, for the advantages of improving heat transfer between the winding and the cooling fluid (¶ [0044]).
Regarding claim 8/7, Streng in view of Juris was discussed above in claim 7. Streng further discloses wherein each slot (3) contains a spacer (5) that supports the conductor (4), and wherein the turbulence generators (26 of Juris) are defined by the spacers (modified as discussed in claim 7).
Regarding claim 9/8, Streng in view of Juris was discussed above in claim 8. Juris further discloses wherein the turbulence generators (26) comprise undulations of the spacers (FIG. 5; ¶ [0044]).
Regarding claim 10/8, Streng in view of Juris was discussed above in claim 8. Juris further discloses wherein the turbulence generators (26) comprise projections (26) formed on the spacers (FIG. 5; ¶ [0044]).
Regarding claim 24/7, Streng in view of Juris was discussed above in claim 7. Streng in view of Juris does not disclose the plurality of turbulence generators are configured and spaced to cause localized flow separations along the coolant passage to increase a heat- transfer coefficient between the coolant and the conductor face during operation, but as Streng in view of Juris discloses all the structure of the limitation, it is also capable of the desired functions of the structure. Thus, Streng in view of Juris discloses claim 24.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is 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.
Regarding claim 21, the specific limitation of “the first spacer has a linear plan shape extending lengthwise along the slot, and a second spacer beneath the first spacer has a non-linear plan shape with undulations” in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
None of the prior arts discloses different shaped spacers.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINKI CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0521. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Seye 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 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.
/MINKI CHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834