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 filed 11/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that Seki does not disclose cooling ducts between stator slot winding turns. Examiner disagrees. Seki in FIG. 5 discloses cooling ducts (or concave parts) 143 between stator slot winding turns. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
No arguments were given for the claim objections of claim 3, 6 and 12.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 11/03/2025, with respect to rejections of claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112 (b), respectively, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of the claims has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 6 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3 and 6 recites “BeO” and “AlN,” which should be spelled out as “beryllium oxide” and “aluminum nitride.”
Claim 12, “an electric motor” was already recited in claim 8.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almeida E Silva et al. (US 2020/0161947 A1) in view of Seki et al. (US 2022/0385123 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Almeida discloses an internal cooling system for an electric motor (1) comprising a stator (2) with stator laminations (7; stator body plates) and stator slots (9), a motor winding (6) comprising head windings (14a, 14b) and stator slot winding turns (60a, 60b) in the stator slots (9), the internal cooling system comprising:
an internal slot jacket (11) configured to encapsulate the stator slot winding turns (60a, 60b) in the stator slots (9),
wherein the internal slot jacket (11) comprises a plurality of ducts (10) configured to conduct coolant (K) in contact with the stator slot winding turns (60a, 60b) in the stator slots (9) to extract winding losses, and
Almeida does not disclose the plurality of ducts within each stator slot, each duct in the plurality of ducts positioned between stator slot winding turns, and
wherein at least one of the ducts and/or the internal slot jacket outside the plurality of ducts comprise a plurality of features configured to increase a thermal contact area between the coolant and the stator slot winding turns to reduce thermal resistance.
Seki discloses the plurality of ducts (143) within each stator slot (123), each duct in the plurality of ducts (143) positioned between stator slot winding turns (141), and
wherein at least one of the ducts (143) and/or the internal slot jacket (50) outside the plurality of ducts (143) comprise a plurality of features (141a-h; the conductor acts as features) configured to increase a thermal contact area between the coolant (C) and the stator slot winding turns (141) to reduce thermal resistance (FIG. 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Almeida in view of Seki to disclose wherein at least one of the ducts and/or the internal slot jacket outside the plurality of ducts comprise a plurality of features configured to increase a thermal contact area between the coolant and the stator slot winding turns to reduce thermal resistance, for the advantages of improving cooling efficiency (¶ [0005]).
Regarding claim 4/1, Almeida in view of Seki was discussed above in claim 1. Almeida further discloses wherein the electric motor (1) comprises a Drive End, DE, casing (25a) and a Non-Drive End, NDE, casing (25b), and the internal cooling system further comprises:
an external head winding jacket (41a, 41b) configured to contain the coolant and connectable to the DE casing (25a) and the NDE casing (25b),
wherein the external head winding cooling jacket (41a, 41b) is configured to encapsulate the head windings (14a, 14b) and be in contact with side surfaces of the head windings (14a, 14b) to extract head winding losses (FIG. 1; ¶ [0090]-[0091]).
Regarding claim 7/1, Almeida in view of Seki was discussed above in claim 1. Seki further discloses wherein the plurality of features (141a-h) comprise fins having a sinusoidal, round, triangular, square or polygon shape (FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 8/1, Almeida in view of Seki was discussed above in claim 1. Almeida further discloses wherein the internal cooling system comprises liquid as the coolant (K; FIG. 1 discloses the coolant flowing from inlet 33 to outlet 34, indicating that the coolant is liquid).
Regarding claim 9/8, Almeida in view of Seki was discussed above in claim 8. Seki further discloses wherein the liquid is a dielectric fluid such as mineral oil, silicon oil or di-ionized water (¶ [0028]).
Regarding claim 10/9, Almeida in view of Seki was discussed above in claim 9. Seki further discloses wherein the motor winding (140) comprises harping windings technology, wound windings, or concentrated windings (¶ [0024], [0070]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almeida E Silva et al. (US 2020/0161947 A1) in view of Seki et al. (US 2022/0385123 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mori et al. (US 2002/0070621 A1).
Regarding claim 2/1, Almeida in view of Seki was discussed above in claim 1. Almeida in view of Seki does not disclose wherein the internal slot jacket comprises a first material being electrically non-conductive with high thermal conductivity and high dielectric strength.
Mori discloses wherein the internal slot jacket (24) comprises a first material (alumina or aluminum nitride) being electrically non-conductive with high thermal conductivity and high dielectric strength (¶ [0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Almeida in view of Seki, further in view of Mori to disclose wherein the internal slot jacket comprises a first material being electrically non-conductive with high thermal conductivity and high dielectric strength, for the advantages of improved thermal conductivities and cooling of the motor (¶ [0078]).
Regarding claim 3/2, Almeida in view of Seki and Mori was discussed above in claim 2. Mori further discloses wherein the first material comprises alumina, BeO or AlN (¶ [0078]).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almeida E Silva et al. (US 2020/0161947 A1) in view of Seki et al. (US 2022/0385123 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Yamada et al. (US 2011/0148337 A1).
Regarding claim 5/4, Almeida in view of Seki was discussed above in claim 4. Almeida in view of Seki does not disclose wherein the external head winding jacket comprises a second material being electrically non-conductive with high thermal conductivity and high dielectric strength.
Yamada discloses a water-cooling jacket comprises a second material (alumina) being electrically non-conductive with high thermal conductivity and high dielectric strength (¶ [0155]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Almeida in view of Seki, further in view of Yamada a water-cooling jacket comprises a second material being electrically non-conductive with high thermal conductivity and high dielectric strength, for the advantages of good heat conductivity of the alumina to improved cooling (¶ [0155]).
Regarding claim 6/5, Almeida in view of Seki and Yamada was discussed above in claim 5. Yamada further discloses wherein the second material comprises alumina, BeO or AlN (¶ [0155]).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almeida E Silva et al. (US 2020/0161947 A1) in view of Seki et al. (US 2022/0385123 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Faass et al. (WO 2019/206876 1).
Regarding claim 11/8, Almeida in view of Seki was discussed above in claim 8. Almeida in view of Seki does not disclose being an alternating current machine such as a Permanent Magnet Synchronous Machine.
Faass discloses being an alternating current machine such as a Permanent Magnet Synchronous Machine (see excerpt below).
PNG
media_image1.png
174
1082
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Almeida in view of Seki, further in view of Faass to disclose being an alternating current machine such as a Permanent Magnet Synchronous Machine, for he advantages of high power and torque density.
Regarding claim 12/8, Almeida in view of Seki was discussed above in claim 8. Almeida in view of Seki does not disclose an air vehicle comprising an electric motor according to claim 8.
Faass discloses an air vehicle (400) comprising an electric motor (20) according to claim 8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Almeida in view of Seki, further in view of Faass to disclose an air vehicle comprising an electric motor, as the use of an electric machine to power any vehicle (land, water or air) is widely known.
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