DETAILED ACTION
Claim1-19 of U.S. Application No. 18554518 filed on 10/09/2023 are presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/09/2023, and 12/01/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The recitation “a stator having the stator has” should read “a stator has”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “23” in fig. 3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: (conductor channel 16). 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. 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.
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 “…choke which has a gap with the at least one electrical conductor” in claims 4, and 14 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 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 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.
Claims 1, 10, and 11 recites “…stator winding is contactable at least in sections by a hydraulic fluid…” it is not clear, what exactly the claimed “sections” are referring to?
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garriga et al. (US 2010/0216332; Hereinafter, “Garriga”) in view of Mohr (US 2015/0333602; Hereinafter, “Mohr”).
Regarding claim 1: Garriga discloses an electrical machine (para [0064] and fig. 4), comprising:
the stator has a stator body with a first stator winding (internal wiring; para [0033]) arranged within a first hydraulic chamber (“fluid may be contained within a machine housing”; [para 51]), within which the first stator winding (the internal wiring within the housing) is contactable at least in sections by a hydraulic fluid (para [0052]);
at least one electrical conductor (connected to power connection blocks 4) of the first stator winding (the internal wiring) emerges in an axial direction from the first stator body and extends through a partition wall (separating the inside and the outside of the machine, and has reference numeral 17 in fig. 1);
PNG
media_image1.png
443
821
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a feed-through element (1) arranged in the partition wall (annotated fig. 4 above), and
the at least one electrical conductor (has terminal 4) extends through the feed-through element (1) such that a hydraulic barrier (seals 2, 3) is formed between the hydraulic fluid on a side of the partition wall (withing the machine housing) facing the stator body (inside the housing) and the hydraulic fluid on a side of the partition wall facing away from the stator body (outside the housing).
Garriga does not clearly show a stator; and a rotor rotatably mounted relative to the stator, the rotor has a rotor shaft with at least one rotor body arranged in a non-rotatable and non-displaceable manner on the rotor shaft.
Mohr discloses (see fig. 9) a stator (21); and a rotor (22) rotatably mounted relative to the stator (fig. 9), the rotor (22) has a rotor shaft (annotated fig. 9 below) with at least one rotor body (annotated fig. 9 below) arranged in a non-rotatable and non-displaceable manner on the rotor shaft (fig. 9).
PNG
media_image2.png
710
722
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the electrical machine of Garriga with the stator; and a rotor rotatably mounted relative to the stator, the rotor has a rotor shaft with at least one rotor body arranged in a non-rotatable and non-displaceable manner on the rotor shaft as disclosed by Mohr to provide a structure that allows for magnetic interaction between the stator and the rotor leading to the rotor to rotate and create useful torque functioning as a motor as well known in the art.
Regarding claim 2/1: Garriga in view of Mohr disclose the limitations of claim 1 and Garriga further discloses that the at least one electrical conductor comprises a plurality of electrical conductors (3 are shown in fig. 4) that extend through the feed-through element (1).
Regarding claim 3/1: Garriga in view of Mohr disclose the limitations of claim 1 and Garriga further discloses that the hydraulic barrier comprises a seal (2, 3).
Regarding claim 5/1: Garriga in view of Mohr disclose the limitations of claim 1 and Garriga further discloses that there are a plurality (3 are seen in fig. 4) of the feed-through elements (1) and the at least one electrical conductor (4) comprises a plurality of electrical conductors (3 are seen in fig. 4), and a respective said hydraulic barrier (2, 3) is provided in the feed-through element (1) for each said electrical conductor (fig. 3B, and 4).
Regarding claim 6/1: Garriga in view of Mohr disclose the limitations of claim 1 and Garriga further discloses that the feed-through element (insulator 1) is formed from a plastic (para [0055]).
Regarding claim 7/1: Garriga in view of Mohr disclose the limitations of claim 1 and Garriga further discloses that the feed-through element (insulator 1) is held in the partition wall (fig. 1) by at least one of a press fit or a form fit.
the limitation of “by at least one of a press fit or a form fit” has not been given a patentable weight since it is a product-by-process limitation in a product claim. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777F, 2d 659, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 8/1: Garriga in view of Mohr disclose the limitations of claim 1 and Garriga further discloses that the feed-through element (1) comprises a plug (10) with a circumferential collar (fig. 3B) which rests against the partition wall (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11: Garriga discloses an electrical machine (para [0064], and fig. 4), comprising: first stator winding (internal wiring; para [0033]) arranged within a first hydraulic chamber (the oil withing the housing; para [0051]); the first stator winding is contactable at least in sections by a hydraulic fluid (para [0051-0052]);
at least one electrical conductor (connected to power connection blocks 4) of the first stator winding (the internal wiring) emerges in an axial direction from the first stator body and extends through a partition wall (separating the inside and the outside of the machine, and has reference numeral 17 in fig. 1);
PNG
media_image1.png
443
821
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a feed-through element (1) arranged in the partition wall (annotated fig. 4 above), and
the at least one electrical conductor (has terminal 4) extends through the feed-through element (1) such that a hydraulic barrier (seals 2, 3) is formed between the hydraulic fluid on a side of the partition wall (withing the machine housing) facing the stator body (inside the housing) and the hydraulic fluid on a side of the partition wall facing away from the stator body (outside the housing).
Garriga does not clearly show stator having the stator has a first stator body with a first stator winding, a rotor rotatably mounted relative to the stator.
Mohr discloses (see fig. 9) stator (21) having the stator (21) has a first stator body with a first stator winding (211), a rotor (22) rotatably mounted relative to the stator (21).
PNG
media_image2.png
710
722
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the electrical machine of Garriga with the s stator having the stator has a first stator body with a first stator winding, a rotor rotatably mounted relative to the stator as disclosed by Mohr to provide a structure that allows for magnetic interaction between the stator and the rotor leading to the rotor to rotate and create useful torque functioning as a motor as well known in the art.
Regarding claim 12/11: Garriga in view of Mohr disclose the limitations of claim 11 and Garriga further discloses that the at least one electrical conductor comprises a plurality of electrical conductors (3 are shown in fig. 4) that extend through the feed-through element (1).
Regarding claim 13/11: Garriga in view of Mohr disclose the limitations of claim 11 and Garriga further discloses that the hydraulic barrier comprises a seal (2, 3).
Regarding claim 15/11: Garriga in view of Mohr disclose the limitations of claim 11 and Garriga further discloses that there are a plurality (3 are seen in fig. 4) of the feed-through elements (1) and the at least one electrical conductor (4) comprises a plurality of electrical conductors (3 are seen in fig. 4), and a respective said hydraulic barrier (2, 3) is provided in the feed-through element (1) for each said electrical conductor (fig. 3B, and 4).
Regarding claim 16/11: Garriga in view of Mohr disclose the limitations of claim 11 and Garriga further discloses that the feed-through element (insulator 1) is formed from a plastic (para [0055]).
Regarding claim 17/11: Garriga in view of Mohr disclose the limitations of claim 11 and Garriga further discloses that the feed-through element (insulator 1) is held in the partition wall (fig. 1) by at least one of a press fit or a form fit.
the limitation of “by at least one of a press fit or a form fit” has not been given a patentable weight since it is a product-by-process limitation in a product claim. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777F, 2d 659, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 18/11: Garriga in view of Mohr disclose the limitations of claim 11 and Garriga further discloses that the feed-through element (1) comprises a plug (10) with a circumferential collar (fig. 3B) which rests against the partition wall (fig. 4).
Claims 4, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garriga in view of Mohr as evidenced by Coulston et al. (US 2012/0169509; Hereinafter, “Coulston”).
Regarding claim 4/1,and 14/11: Garriga in view of Mohr disclose the limitations of claim 1, and 11 but does not disclose the hydraulic barrier comprises a choke which has a gap with the at least one electrical conductor. However, It would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to replace the seal of Mohr with a choke which has a gap with the at least one electrical conductor since it is know the equivalence of seal and choke for their use in the fluid control art (as evidenced by Coulston, para [0015]) and the selection of any of these known equivalents to selectively control the fluid would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 9, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garriga in view of Mohr and in further view of (Yamashita et al. (JP 2016-192851; Hereinafter, “Yamashita”).
Regarding claim 9/1,and 19/11: Garriga in view of Mohr disclose the limitations of claim 1, and 11 and Garriga further discloses and partitioning wall over which the hydraulic fluid is adapted to flow (the bottom of the partitioning wall facing the inside of the housing).
Garriga in view of Mohr do not disclose that the partition wall forms a bottom of a conductor channel in which the at least one conductor is guided in a circumferential direction and over which the hydraulic fluid is adapted to flow.
Yamashita discloses the partition wall (40) forms a bottom of a conductor channel (formed between 40, and 16a) in which the at least one conductor (bus bars 72) is guided in a circumferential direction (fig. 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the electrical machine of Garriga in view of Mohr with the partition wall forms a bottom of a conductor channel in which the at least one conductor is guided in a circumferential direction and over which the hydraulic fluid is adapted to flow as disclosed by Yamashita to be able to isolate the electrical circuits in a wiring channel easing manufacturing and future maintenance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 AHMED ELNAKIB whose telephone number is (571)270-0638. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-4:00PM. 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, Tulsidas Patel can be reached at 571-272-2098. 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.
/AHMED ELNAKIB/ Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2834