DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant's communication filed 19 March 2026. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed: claims 1-15 were previously pending, with claims 9-15 being withdrawn from consideration; claim 2 was canceled by the amendment; and thus, claims 1 and 3-15 are now pending in the application, with claims 9-15 being withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed 19 March 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s first argument (pages 5-6 of the Remarks) alleges that Pyrhönen does not disclose a fluid supply channel, its midpoint location, or the orientation of the bores, as recited in claim 1. However, since no explanation or evidence is provided in support of this allegation, the argument fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because it amounts to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Pyrhönen does disclose the fluid supply channel [111] configured to receive fluid from a fluid source (fig. 1a; ¶ 0026) and said channel [111] terminating near a midpoint of the rotor in the axial direction (fig. 1a). Thus, the previous grounds of rejection in view of Pyrhönen are maintained.
As for the new limitation regarding the orientation of the bores, i.e. the midpoint being “radially inward” of the two openings, this limitation is clearly not disclosed by the axially oriented bores of Pyrhönen. However, the concept of inclining rotor cooling channels in order to take advantage of centrifugal forces is known in the art, and new grounds of rejection, citing the Chamberlin (US 2010/0141062 A1) reference, have been applied below.
The Applicant’s second argument (page 6 of the Remarks) alleges that Oechslen does not disclose a fluid supply channel, its midpoint location, or the orientation of the bores, as recited in claim 1. However, since Oechslen has not been cited as teaching any of these limitations, this argument is moot.
Disclosure
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the bores extending from the midpoint to “a first opening… adjacent a radial side of the rotor core and to a second opening… adjacent an opposite radial side of the rotor core” (claim 1; it appears the term “radial” has been improperly used in place of the correct term “axial”), and the “contoured outer surface comprises a recessed area” (claim 5; this arrangement is not shown in combination with the bores recited in claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL. — The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the bores extending from the midpoint to “a first opening… adjacent a radial side of the rotor core and to a second opening… adjacent an opposite radial side of the rotor core”. As shown in figures 1-2 of the application, the openings are arranged on opposite axial sides of the rotor core, not opposite radial sides. Thus, the arrangement of the bores as currently recited was not disclosed in the application as originally filed, and constitutes new matter. Since this is believed to have been a mistake in the current amendment, the prior art has been applied under the assumption that the claims were intended to recite the “radial side” and “opposite radial side” as is shown in the figures of the application.
Claim 5 recites the conductor bars comprising contoured surfaces as “a recessed area” as shown, for example, in figure 4A of the application as originally filed. This limitation corresponded to the bores formed “over an outer surface of the conductor bars” as recited in claim 1 prior to the current amendment. The application as originally filed discloses the bores as currently recited in claim 1, i.e. extending through the bars only, in a different embodiment than the bores comprising recessed areas as recited in claim 5. Thus, claim 5 now includes limitations of two separate embodiments which were not disclosed as being usable together in the application as originally filed. Thus, claim 5 now constitutes new matter.
The remaining claims are rejected due to their dependency on claim 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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pyrhönen et al. (US 2019/0372414 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Pyrhonen”, in view of Oechslen et al. (DE 10 2018 126 320 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Oechslen”, and Chamberlin et al. (US 2010/0141062 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Chamberlin 062”.
Regarding claim 1, Pyrhonen discloses a rotor assembly [101] used in an induction machine (fig. 1-3; ¶ 0023), comprising:
a rotor core [103] having a plurality of conductor bar slots [105] spaced circumferentially around the rotor core [103] (fig. 1a-1b; ¶ 0023);
a rotor shaft [110] including a fluid supply channel [111] configured to receive fluid from a fluid source (fig. 1a; ¶ 0026) the fluid supply channel [111] terminating near a midpoint location [112] of the rotor core [103] (fig. 1a); and
PNG
media_image1.png
316
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
conductor bars [104], received within the conductor bar slots [105], that include bores [108] formed over an outer surface of the conductor bars [104] (fig. 1a-1b; ¶ 0024; coolant flows through bores [108] contacting the radial surface of the conductor bars) and extend from the midpoint location [112] to a first opening [109,left] at one end of the conductor bar [104] adjacent an axial side [left] of the rotor core [103] and to a second opening [109,right] at another end of the conductor bar [104] adjacent an opposite axial side [right] of the rotor core [103] (fig. 1a; ¶ 0024).
Pyrhonen does not disclose the bores [108] being formed within the conductor bars [104], or that the midpoint location [112] is radially inward toward the rotor shaft [110] relative to the first opening [109,left] and the second opening [109,right].
Oechslen discloses a rotor assembly [2] used in an induction machine [1] (fig. 1; ¶ 0021), comprising a rotor core [4] having a plurality of conductor bar slots [5] spaced circumferentially around the rotor core [4] (fig. 1, 7; ¶ 0021-0022);
a rotor shaft [3] including a fluid supply channel [33] configured to receive fluid from a fluid source (fig. 1; ¶ 0021); and
PNG
media_image2.png
301
626
media_image2.png
Greyscale
conductor bars [6], received within the conductor bar slots [5], that include bores [21] formed within the conductor bars [6] and receive fluid from the fluid supply channel [33] through the bores [21] formed in the conductor bars [6] and over an outer surface of the conductor bars [6] (fig. 1, 7; ¶ 0021, 0028-0030; coolant flows through bore [21] and recesses [11-18] of the conductor bars).
PNG
media_image3.png
366
590
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the bores of Pyrhonen both within and over an outer surface of the conductor bars as taught by Oechslen, in order to provide a coolant flow on both sides of the conductor thereby achieving improved heat dissipation (¶ 0005-0006 of Oechslen).
The combination of Pyrhonen and Oechslen still does not disclose that the midpoint location is radially inward toward the rotor shaft relative to the first opening and the second opening, i.e. that the bores are inclined relative to the axial direction.
Chamberlin 062 discloses a rotor assembly [12] comprising a rotor core [18] with bores [32] receiving a cooling fluid [44], the bores [32] extending from near a midpoint location [34] to openings [36] at the axial ends of the rotor core [18] (fig. 4; ¶ 0012), wherein the midpoint location [34] is radially inward toward the rotor shaft [16] relative to the openings [36] (fig. 4; ¶ 0012-0013).
PNG
media_image4.png
495
490
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the bores of Pyrhonen/Oechslen inclined relative to the axial direction as taught by Chamberlin 062, in order to take advantage of centrifugal forces in urging the coolant through the plurality of passages (¶ 0013 of Chamberlin 062) thereby eliminating any need for additional pumping equipment.
Regarding claim 4, Pyrhonen, in view of Oechslen and Chamberlin 062, discloses the rotor assembly [101] recited in claim 1, as stated above, further comprising conductor bars [104] with a contoured outer surface (fig. 1b; ¶ 0023; the conductor bars are designed to fit into the trapezoidal shape of the conductor slots).
Regarding claim 5, Pyrhonen, in view of Oechslen and Chamberlin 062, discloses the rotor assembly [101] recited in claim 4, as stated above.
Pyrhonen still does not disclose that the contoured outer surface comprises a recessed area.
Oechslen discloses a rotor assembly [2], as stated above, further comprising conductor bars [6] with a contoured outer surface (fig. 7; ¶ 0030; the conductor bars are designed to fit the shape of the conductor slots), and wherein the contoured outer surface comprises a recessed area [11-18] (fig. 7; ¶ 0028-0030).
PNG
media_image3.png
366
590
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the contoured outer surfaces of Pyrhonen having recessed areas as taught by Oechslen, in order to provide coolant flow symmetrically on both sides of the conductor, thereby improving heat dissipation and achieving cost-efficient cooling of the rotor (¶ 0006 of Oechslen).
Regarding claim 6, Pyrhonen, in view of Oechslen and Chamberlin 062, discloses the rotor assembly [101] recited in claim 4, as stated above, wherein the contoured outer surface comprises a contact surface that abuts a bar-facing surface of the conductor bar slot [105] (fig. 1b; the circumferential sides of the conductor bars directly contact circumferential surfaces of the rotor core).
Regarding claim 7, Pyrhonen, in view of Oechslen and Chamberlin 062, discloses the rotor assembly [101] recited in claim 1, as stated above, wherein the fluid exits the rotor core [103] and moves radially outwardly to contact end turns of a stator [302] (fig. 3; ¶ 0029; rotation of the rotor, and thus the coolant channels, inherently causes radially outward movement of the coolant, toward the stator end turns [303], due to centrifugal forces).
Regarding claim 8, Pyrhonen, in view of Oechslen and Chamberlin 062, discloses the rotor assembly [101] recited in claim 1, as stated above, wherein the fluid from the fluid supply channel [111] is initially supplied to a radial face of the rotor core [103] (fig. 1a-1b; ¶ 0026).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pyrhonen, Oechslen, and Chamberlin 062 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chamberlin et al. (US 2014/0175916 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Chamberlin 916”.
Regarding claim 3, Pyrhonen, in view of Oechslen and Chamberlin 062, discloses the rotor assembly [101] recited in claim 1, as stated above.
Pyrhonen does not disclose a plurality of conductor bars [104] axially placed within a single conductor bar slot [105] and a gap between the conductor bars [104] receiving fluid radially outwardly from a rotor shaft axis.
Chamberlin 916 discloses a rotor assembly [26] comprising a rotor core [54] having a plurality of conductor bars slots [68] with conductor bars [80] received therein (fig. 1-4; ¶ 0051-0053), further comprising a plurality of conductor bars [80] axially placed within a single conductor bar slot [68] and a gap [78] between the conductor bars [80] receiving fluid radially outwardly from a rotor shaft [30] axis (fig. 4; ¶ 0054).
PNG
media_image5.png
430
572
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the rotor assembly of Pyrhonen having multiple conductor bars with a gap therebetween disposed in each slot as taught by Chamberlin 916, in order to reduce manufacturing costs by avoiding cross-drilling operations (¶ 0004-0007 of Chamberlin 916).
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Prior art:
Drubel (US 2005/089835 A1) discloses a rotor having conductor bars with coolant channels comprising bores formed therein.
Sismour, Jr. (US 4,908,537) discloses a rotor having conductor bars with coolant channels comprising both bores formed therein and recesses in their outer surface.
Bror Dalmo (US 3,621,315) discloses a rotor having conductor bars with coolant channels comprising bores formed therein.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/about-ptab/new-ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/patent-trial-and-appeal-board-pro-bono-program-independent. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final replay that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Andrews whose telephone number is (571)270-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30am-3:00pm.
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, Oluseye 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael Andrews/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights