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 remarks, filed 11/26/2025, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the Applicant successfully argues, on at least pages 7-8 of the remarks, that the “protrusions of the inspection cap continue with the internal cooling coil in a region of the through-opening” are not reflected in Savant, which fails to disclose the mating of the cap protrusions with the internal cooling channel. The 102(a)(2) of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 8 and 10-11 are 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.
Specifically, claim 1, requires “a single-piece casing…comprising: at least one internal cooling coil…and at least one inspection cap”. The inspection cap, as disclosed in the specification, is a separate structure from the casing, with the cap itself being segmented, or multi-piece. It is not possible for the inspection cap to be included as a single piece with the casing as claimed, otherwise there could not be a window covered by the cap. As such the claim is rejected as indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savant (US 20100085706 A1) in view of Shibuya et al (JP 2017118668 A).
With respect to claim 1, Savant discloses a single-piece casing for rotating electric machines, comprising: at least one internal cooling coil (figs 1-6, helical conduit 130), at least one inspection window comprising a through-opening (fig. 2, access holes 21), and at least one inspection cap (paragraph 33 “As would be understood, welding a plate (see FIG. 5), inserting a plug, or placing another cover onto the opening can close any access holes 21 in the un-machined area 23 of the inner surface 22 of the housing.”), wherein the single-piece casing and the internal cooling coil are formed in a single piece (paragraph 20 “the electric device includes, as part of the overall cooling strategy for the device, a fluid cooling system that includes generally a helical conduit 130 that is integrated into the rear housing 6.”).
Savant does not teach “and wherein protrusions of the inspection cap continue with the turns of the internal cooling coil in the region of the through-opening.”
Shibuya teaches wherein protrusions of the inspection cap continue with the turns of the internal cooling coil in the region of the through-opening (fig. 13, a one-piece casing 100 having an inspection window 54 and an inspection cap 57 with a protrusion 59 that cooperates with the cooling coil to continue the cooling coil. Conduits 60 and 61 also protrude into the coil and forma continuation of the flow path).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the single-piece housing of Savant with the timed inspection cap with the cooling channels of Shibuya in order to give an access point for maintenance of the cooling system while maintaining the internal cooling structure.
With respect to claim 2, Savant in view of Shibuya teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Savant further teaches the internal cooling coil comprises turns (fig. 4, helical turns 150) with an inter-turn distance, and that it extends from a cooling coil inlet to a cooling coil outlet (fig. 2, turns connect connection tubes 149), both formed on the external surface part of the cylindrical main body (fig. 1, and paragraph 25 “. At either end of the conduit 130, there is provided a connection tube 149 extending outwardly from the outer surface. The tubes 149 may be welded to the conduit 130, and serve as inlet and outlet connections. The inlet, not shown, may be positioned gravitationally above the outlet 154 (FIG. 1)”), wherein the internal cooling coil runs in an axial direction across the entire wall of the single-piece casing (fig. 2, and paragraph 22 “the core design of the present disclosure allows a smooth helical groove to be cast inside a housing 2. In a typical integral generator/motor housing the cooling grooves are integrated inside the housing.”).
With respect to claim 13, Savant in view of Shibuya teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Savant further teaches a rotating electric machine, comprising a single-piece casing of claim 1 and a cooling fluid (paragraph 20 “a fluid cooling system that includes generally a helical conduit 130 that is integrated into the rear housing 6”).
Claims 3-5 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savant in view of Shibuya in view of Lin et al (US 20200036264 A1).
With respect to claim 3, Savant in view of Shibuya teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “characterized in that the inspection cap comprises a base platform, an intermediate platform, and a plurality of protrusions extending from the intermediate platform”
Lin teaches the inspection cap comprises a base platform (see figure 5 marked below), an intermediate platform (see figure 5 marked below), and a plurality of protrusions extending from the intermediate platform (see figure 5 marked below).
PNG
media_image1.png
632
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the single-piece housing of Savant with the cap of Shibuya with the platforms of Lin in order to give an access point for maintenance of the cooling system.
With respect to claim 4, Savant in view of Shibuya teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “in that the flat surface of the base platform surrounds the intermediate platform and forms a flat face comprising a short smaller face, a long smaller face, and two narrow larger faces, wherein the base platform comprises a base height and a perimeter chamfer”
Lin teaches the flat surface of the base platform surrounds the intermediate platform (see figure 5 marked above) and forms a flat face comprising a short smaller face (see figure 5 marked above, vertical side nearest T22), a long smaller face (see figure 5 vertical side furthest from T22), and two narrow larger faces (see figure 5 marked above horizontal sides), wherein the base platform comprises a base height and a perimeter chamfer (see figure 5, first connecting surface 231 has a height and sloped sides).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the single-piece housing of Savant with the cap of Shibuya with the platforms of Lin in order to give an access point for maintenance of the cooling system.
With respect to claim 5, Savant in view of Shibuya teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “the intermediate platform comprises an intermediate height, wherein all protrusions extend perpendicularly from the flat surface of the intermediate platform and have protrusion height”
Lin teaches the intermediate platform comprises an intermediate height (see figure 5 marked above, intermediate platform has a height), wherein all protrusions extend perpendicularly from the flat surface of the intermediate platform and have protrusion height (see figure 5 marked above, protrusions have heights and extends from intermediate platform).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the single-piece housing of Savant with the cap of Shibuya with the platforms and protrusions of Lin in order to give an access point for maintenance of the cooling system.
With respect to claim 10, Savant in view of Shibuya teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “that the base platform is shaped compatible with the shape of the upper edge, wherein the sizing of the upper edge are greater than or equal to the sizing of the base platform, preferably the sizing of the upper edge are greater than the sizing of the base platform”
Lin teaches the base platform is shaped compatible with the shape of the upper edge (see figure 5, base platform is compatible and has a raised edge), wherein the sizing of the upper edge are greater than or equal to the sizing of the base platform, preferably the sizing of the upper edge are greater than the sizing of the base platform (see figure 5, base platform has a raised edge).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the single-piece housing of Savant with the cap of Shibuya with raised edge of Lin in order seal the access point from ingress or egress.
With respect to claim 11, Savant in view of Shibuya teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “the intermediate platform is shaped and sized compatible with the shape of the through-opening.”
Lin teaches the intermediate platform is shaped and sized compatible with the shape of the through-opening (fig. 5 marked above, intermediate platform is shaped and compatible with the opening).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the single-piece housing of Savant with the cap of Shibuya with the intermediate platform compatibility with the opening of Lin in order to give an access point for maintenance of the cooling system.
With respect to claim 12, Savant in view of Shibuya teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “the inspection window comprises an upper edge, a recess with a flat surface parallel to the horizontal plane of the longitudinal axis of the single-piece casing and a through-opening, wherein the flat surface of the recess comprises a short smaller face, a long smaller face, and two narrow major faces”
Lin teaches the inspection window comprises an upper edge (see figure 5 marked above), a recess (fig. 5 marked above inside of edge) with a flat surface parallel to the horizontal plane of the longitudinal axis of the single-piece casing (fig. 5 above area shared by base platform) and a through-opening (fig. 5, at T22), wherein the flat surface of the recess comprises a short smaller face (see figure 5 marked above, vertical side nearest T22), a long smaller face (see figure 5 vertical side furthest from T22), and two narrow major faces (see figure 5 marked above horizontal sides).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the single-piece housing of Savant with the cap of Shibuya with the platforms of Lin in order to give an access point for maintenance of the cooling system.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savant in view of Shibuya in view of Fatemi et al (US 20200161938 A1).
With respect to claim 8, Savant in view of Shibuya teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “that a distance between the first smaller protrusion and the larger protrusion is equal to the distance between each of the smaller protrusions.”
Fatemi teaches a distance between the first smaller protrusion and the larger protrusion is equal to the distance between each of the smaller protrusions (fig. 4 distances between ribs 142 and 150 are equal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the single-piece housing of Savant with the cap of Shibuya with the variable protrusion sizes of Fatemi in order to modulate the flow as desired such that large heat generating components can have more thermal energy drawn from them.
With respect to claim 9, Savant in view of Shibuya teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “the distance is equal to the pitch of the channel, and wherein the smaller protrusions have a thickness equal to or smaller than the inter-turn distance of the channel.”
Fatemi teaches that the distance is equal to the pitch of the channel (fig. 4 distances between ribs 142 and 150 are equal), and wherein the smaller protrusions have a thickness equal to or smaller than the inter-turn distance of the channel (fig. 4, ribs 150 are smaller than channel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the single-piece housing of Savant with the cap of Shibuya with the variable protrusion sizes of Fatemi in order to modulate the flow as desired such that large heat generating components can have more thermal energy drawn from them.
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.
With respect to claim 6, the limitations “the larger protrusion is arranged flush with the short
smaller face and its face opposite the short smaller face comprises a protrusion inclination” in combination disclosed are neither anticipated nor obvious over the prior art. Specifically, with respect to claim 6, the closest available prior art is Fatemi which teaches a larger rib flush with the outside surface of a housing or cover (paragraph 53 “The ribs 142 may be configured so that the tops of the ridges contact or are proximate to an inner surface of the outer shell 140”). However, the prior art, exemplified by Savant in view of Fatemi fails to teach, alone or in obvious combination “the larger protrusion is arranged flush with the short smaller face and its face opposite the short smaller face comprises a protrusion inclination.”
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RILEY OWEN STOUT whose telephone number is (571)272-0068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:30pm 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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at (571)272-3560. 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.
/R.O.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834