DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/572,065, filed on 19 December, 2023, were presented for examination. In the response filed 5 February, 2026, new claim 21 was added. In the response filed 11 June, 2026, new claim 22 was added. Claims 1-22 are currently pending in the application.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11 June, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Pursuant to the Examiner Interview between Mr. Rolnicki and the Examiner, Applicant asserts that the current claim amendment overcomes the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 – the non-overlapping feature of claim 1 is axial and not radial. This complies with the drawings of the instant application and the Examiner’s understanding of the cylindrical coordinate system nearly always used to describe rotating motors in the motor arts. The definition of “axially” is clear to one skilled in the art and Applicant’s development of their meaning of the term in the remarks, which corresponds to the meaning established in said interview, is accepted by the Office.
Applicant further argues that Bradfield axially overlaps the winding heads, and thus the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on Bradfield should be withdrawn. The Examiner concurs. Those rejections and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection also based on Bradfield have been withdrawn. In short, all rejections based on Bradfield have been overcome due to the “axially” term in claim 1.
Applicant further argues that Rippel fails to disclose “the cooling fluid being ejected from the rotor by centrifugal force…” and that the rejections based on Rippel should be withdrawn. The Examiner concurs, the rejections based on Rippel have been withdrawn.
Although all the outstanding rejections have been withdrawn, the Continued Examination involved an extended search and a review of the collection of Prior Art the Examiner had gathered. New rejections based on Swales (US 2011/0084561 A1, provided in the IDS filed 19 December, 2023) were necessary on some of the claims because the reference teaches many limitations of them. Please see below.
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.
Claim 21 is 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.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the internal face" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination on the merits, the Examiner will interpret this to mean “the internal surface”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 9, 17-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Swales (US 2011/0084561 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Swales teaches a rotary electrical machine [electric motor/generator 16] (see ¶ 0021) extending along a longitudinal axis X (added and labeled by the Examiner in the annotated excerpt of fig. 2 attached below), having a rotor [64] and a wound stator [66] having winding heads [end turns 68], the rotor [64] and the stator [66] being arranged in a casing [stator housing 56] having an internal wall, the rotor having at least one channel [dam member 118A] for distribution [oil flows E/G] of a cooling fluid [oil] (see ¶ 0034), the cooling fluid being ejected from the rotor by centrifugal force (¶ 0034 recites “dam members 118A, 118B extend axially outward and radially inward from the rotor end rings 114A, 114B, creating a dam that temporarily traps and distributes the cooling oil flow E circumferentially around the rotor end rings 114A, 114B, as indicated by flow arrows F in FIG. 3, before centrifugal force causes the cooling oil to spill outward from the dam members 118A, 118B, as indicated by flow arrows G in FIGS. 2 and 3, thus providing evenly distributed cooling at the inner diameter of the end turns 68…”,
PNG
media_image1.png
474
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the machine having at least one guide device [first flow control member 96A] arranged radially between the winding heads [68] of the stator and the internal wall of the casing, wherein the guide device does not overlap axially with the winding heads of the stator over any non-zero distance,
the guide device [96A] being configured to orient the cooling fluid [E/G] ejected from the rotor [64] to the winding heads [68] of the stator (fig. 3 shows the cooling fluid passing through the winding heads, after which the fluid will be between the guide device and the winding heads, whence it cannot travel further outward and therefore it will stay in and/or fall back into contact with the winding heads, such that the guide device is “configured” to orient the fluid from the rotor to the winding heads, very similarly to how this is done in the instant application).
PNG
media_image2.png
513
479
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2/1, Swales teaches the machine of claim 1, and further teaches a supply [fluid supply gallery 90] through the casing (referring back to fig. 2 and also ¶ 0029), the cooling fluid coming from the casing being able to be oriented toward the winding heads [flow B which is shown in fig. 3 above and also ¶ 0031 which recites “the flow control members 96A,96B are preferably pierced or otherwise form nipples 102 around the openings 100 to more accurately direct the flow B onto the end turns 68…”) by the guide device [96A].
With respect to claim 3/1, Swales teaches the machine of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the guide device [96A] is at least partially annular when seen in cross section [fig. 3], the guide device being able to be coaxial with the shaft [24] (still referring to fig. 3 above).
With respect to claim 4/3/1, Swales teaches the machine of claim 3, and further teaches wherein the guide device [96A] comprises an inner surface and an external surface (surfaces labeled by the Examiner in the annotated blow-up of fig. 3 attached below) and openings [100] provided between the external surface and the internal surface (see ¶ 0031 which recites “the openings 100 are sized to allow fluid to be directed out of the supply gallery 90 onto the end turns 68…”).
PNG
media_image3.png
320
323
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 17/1, Swales teaches the machine of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the guide device [96A] comprises means [flanges 107] of attachment (see ¶ 0031) to the casing [56] (the means of attachment is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112f, which was discussed in the First Office Action – as pointed out therein, the Examiner found support for the means in ¶ 0142 and figs. 16-17 of the instant application – it appears to be a hole for a fastener, but the description in к 0142 does not expound on the means or its way of functioning. It appears to be a lug with said hole, but the Examiner cannot determine where the fastener would attach to, etc.).
PNG
media_image4.png
417
743
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 18/1, Swales teaches the machine of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the rotor [64] is supplied with cooling fluid [oil] (see ¶ 0034), which is oriented by the guide device [96a] towards the winding heads [68] of the stator [66] (fig. 3 shows the cooling fluid passing through the winding heads, after which the fluid will be between the guide device and the winding heads, whence it cannot travel further outward and therefore it will stay in and/or fall back into contact with the winding heads, such that the guide device is “configured” to orient the fluid from the rotor to the winding heads, very similarly to how this is done in the instant application).
With respect to claim 19/18/1, Swales teaches the machine of claim 18, and further teaches wherein the cooling fluid is not pressurized (it cannot be pressurized in the area of flows E and G because falling and being flung through the space/air).
With respect to claim 21/3/1, Swales teaches the machine of claim 3, and further teaches wherein the guide device comprises an internal surface and an external surface and reliefs [holes 100] provided on the internal surface.
PNG
media_image5.png
324
324
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 22/1, Swales teaches the machine of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the guide device [96a] comprises a surface [inner surface of 106a] (specifically the bottom surface not shown in fig. 4 – this is also shown as a bottom surface of 96 in fig. 1 above) oriented obliquely or perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis X (please refer to fig. 1 above for the X axis) of the machine for orienting the cooling fluid ejected from the rotor to the winding heads of the stator (when cooling fluid from the rotor strikes it will be moved by deflecting axially inwardly, where it can then contact the winding heads).
PNG
media_image6.png
395
432
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swales.
With respect to claim 9/4/3/1, Swales teaches the machine of claim 4, but omits teaching wherein the openings have on the internal surface and/or the external surface a surface area between 5 and 350 mm2.
¶ 0031 of Swales recites “the openings 100 are sized to allow fluid to be directed out of the supply gallery…” and ¶ 0035 recites “the cooling oil pressure and flow rate is controlled by designing the sizes of the inlet 46 and outlet 48 as well as the openings 100…. So that the oil sufficiently cools the rotor 64, stator 66, and bearing 74, and does not pool from the collection chamber 94 up to the rotor 64, which would increase spin losses.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to experiment with the machine of Swales, as prescribed by ¶ 0035 of Swales, in order to establish the smallest amount of flow required to maintain a temperature optimal for operation of said machine. An ordinary practitioner would optimize for a hole surface area that is prescribed by a specific temperature reduction value, the hole surface area being a result effective variable dependent upon the desired temperature reduction, with the operating temperature having a value predictable by the hole surface area, and vice versa. It is noted that the range “between 5 and 350 mm2” is vast in proportion to a small or medium sized motor, such that 5 mm2 would almost completely constrict flow to an ineffective amount in a medium-sized motor, while 350 is, for a small-sized motor, no restriction at all and quite obviously beyond the intended openness portrayed by Swales’s drawings. Thus, not only would a person of ordinary skill in the art, while experimenting according to Swales’s prescription, find it obvious and result-effective to use a surface area of between 5 and 350 mm2 in order to optimize machine operating temperature with predictable results, they would, in dealing with machines of a certain overall size and heat generation, find that a range of surface areas within the claimed range would actually be necessitated, as smaller machines could not have a surface area greater than 350 mm2 without Swales’s guide device ceasing to have any solid area or structure remaining, and as mentioned, 5 mm2 is so small that said practitioner would in most instances find that operating below it is ineffectual.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 10-14, and 20 are 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 5, and claim 20 which depends from it, the prior art of record does not teach or reasonably suggest a rotary electrical machine extending along a longitudinal axis X, having a rotor and a wound stator having winding heads, the rotor and the stator being arranged in a casing having an internal wall, the rotor having at least one channel for distribution of a cooling fluid, the cooling fluid being ejected from the rotor by centrifugal force, the machine having at least one guide device arranged radially between the winding heads of the stator and the internal wall of the casing, wherein the guide device does not overlap axially with the winding heads of the stator over any non-zero distance,
the guide device being configured to orient the cooling fluid ejected from the rotor to the winding heads of the stator;
wherein the guide device is at least partially annular when seen in cross section, the guide device being able to be coaxial with a shaft of the rotor;
wherein the guide device comprises an internal surface and an external surface and reliefs provided on the internal face;
wherein the reliefs are ribs.
Due to the most recent amendment, the Examiner has eliminated from consideration both references that have axial overlap between the winding heads and the guide device as well as references that do not have the cooling fluid traveling outwardly from the rotor from a channel via centrifugal force. These two features combine to form a single advantageous design and the Examiner feels it would be hindsight reasoning to combine references, or features therefrom, to make the claimed device if the references do not have both of these features.
In particular vis-à-vis claim 5, the reference combined with Bradfield to establish the ribs of claim 5 (in the Final Rejection) as obvious for combination with Bradfield was Sakurada (JP 2019097347 A).
PNG
media_image7.png
385
533
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Sakurada does teach the ribs [52], and more or less in the place of the reliefs/holes of Swales. However, Sakurada is not dealing with fluid coming centrifugally from the rotor, only fluid injected via a port through the upper outer wall. Therefore Sakurada’s ribs are solving a different problem than Swales and the instant application, such that there seems no sufficient motivation to combine other than hindsight reasoning in light of the present application.
The Examiner does not doubt that there are other guide devices like this that have ribs on the internal surface. However, he believes he has seen and collected nearly all available references that have cooling fluid emanating radially from the rotor via centrifugal force, and he has not seen the ribs on a guide device in those references. Therefore, he believes there is no substantive prima facie case that could be made for the combination of such references, since doing so would be borrowing the rib feature out of context.
With respect to claim 6, and claims 7 and 8 which depend from it, the prior art of record does not teach or reasonably suggest a rotary electrical machine extending along a longitudinal axis X, having a rotor and a wound stator having winding heads, the rotor and the stator being arranged in a casing having an internal wall, the rotor having at least one channel for distribution of a cooling fluid, the cooling fluid being ejected from the rotor by centrifugal force, the machine having at least one guide device arranged radially between the winding heads of the stator and the internal wall of the casing, wherein the guide device does not overlap axially with the winding heads of the stator over any non-zero distance,
the guide device being configured to orient the cooling fluid ejected from the rotor to the winding heads of the stator;
wherein the guide device is at least partially annular when seen in cross section, the guide device being able to be coaxial with a shaft of the rotor;
wherein the guide device comprises an internal surface and an external surface and openings provided between the external surface and the internal surface;
wherein the openings each extend along an elongation axis L which is oblique in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis X of the machine.
Swales’s openings clearly extend along an elongation axis which is in the plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis X of the machine, and therefore do not meet the limitations of claim 6. As was put forth in the reasons for indication of allowability of claim 5 apropos the ribs, the Examiner does not doubt that there are other guide devices like this that have oblique holes. However, he believes he has seen and collected nearly all available references that have cooling fluid emanating radially from the rotor, and he has not seen the oblique holes on a guide device in those references. Therefore, he believes there is no substantive prima facie case that could be made for the combination of such references, since doing so would be borrowing the rib feature out of context.
With respect to claim 10, and claim 11 which depends from it, the prior art of record does not teach or reasonably suggest a rotary electrical machine extending along a longitudinal axis X, having a rotor and a wound stator having winding heads, the rotor and the stator being arranged in a casing having an internal wall, the rotor having at least one channel for distribution of a cooling fluid, the cooling fluid being ejected from the rotor by centrifugal force, the machine having at least one guide device arranged radially between the winding heads of the stator and the internal wall of the casing, wherein the guide device does not overlap axially with the winding heads of the stator over any non-zero distance,
the guide device being configured to orient the cooling fluid ejected from the rotor to the winding heads of the stator;
wherein the guide device is at least partially annular when seen in cross section, the guide device being able to be coaxial with a shaft of the rotor;
wherein the guide device comprises an internal surface and an external surface and openings provided between the external surface and the internal surface;
wherein the guide device comprises a frustoconical part coaxial with the longitudinal axis X of the machine and oriented towards the winding heads.
The Examiner did find the feature “wherein the guide device comprises a frustoconical part coaxial with the longitudinal axis X of the machine and oriented towards the winding heads”.
Sano (US 2017/0012501 A1) teaches {the following is most of claim 1} a rotary electrical machine [electric motor 10] extending along a longitudinal axis X (axes labeled in the legend of the annotated fig. 1 excerpt attached below), having a rotor [11 including rotor core 13, copper bar 14, and scraping member 51] and a wound stator [21] having winding heads [coil end portions 23a] (see ¶ 0033-0034), the rotor [11/13/14/51] and the stator [21] being arranged in a casing [housing body portion 32] having an internal wall [inner circumferential surface 34] (see ¶ 0035), the rotor [11/13/14/51] having at least one channel [recessed portion 54] (see fig. 3A – the Examiner has borrowed the label for 54 from fig. 3A into the joint annotation of figs. 1 and 4A below) for distribution of a cooling fluid [oil coolant 41], the cooling fluid [41] being ejected from the rotor by centrifugal force (see ¶ 0043 which recites “the oil coolant 41 in the recessed portion 54 is lifted upward in accordance with rotation of the scraping member 51 and is discharged by centrifugal force to the outside of the rotating shaft 12 in the radial direction through the oil introduction holes 55…”),
the machine having at least one guide device [reflective portion 61] (Fig. 4A is described as “a portion above the scraping member 51… according to a modification example…” – there is no mention of this embodiment involving changes to the basic structure of fig. 1, so it the Examiner takes for granted that everything from fig. 1 and ¶0030-0057 is also in fig. 4A) arranged radially between the winding heads [23a] of the stator [23] and the internal wall [34] of the casing [32], the guide device being configured to orient the cooling fluid ejected from the rotor to the winding heads of the stator.
PNG
media_image8.png
347
830
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Sano actually teaches wherein the guide device comprises a frustoconical part [61] coaxial with the longitudinal axis X of the machine and oriented towards the winding heads [23a].
However, Sano’s guide device does overlap axially with the winding heads of the stator, and claim 1 now clearly requires that it cannot, such that Sano does not anticipate claim 1 and therefore cannot anticipate claim 10.
The Examiner does not believe Swales’s guide device could or should be altered in light of the teachings of Sano for various reasons, such as, firstly, it would block the regular flow of oil as prescribed by Swales. Sano’s guide device is attached to the housing wall and Swales at various parts of its circumference does not. Also, Swales’s guide device receives oil from the dams, while Sano’s receives it directly from a centrifugal flinging ring supported on the rotor with struts/spokes. The reconfiguring of Swales’s structure to add Sano’s frustoconical part would be extensive enough to disincentivize such an addition (which would require giving up some advantages of Swales) such that the Examiner cannot imagine how said ordinary practitioner would see the combination as an optimization that would outdo the performance of either reference’s solution on its own. The Examiner believes that modifying Swales with Sano’s frustoconical feature would require either a) more-than-ordinary skill in the art or b) hindsight reasoning in light of the instant application. He believes the same about whether Sano could be modified with Swales’s non-axially-overlapping feature because said ordinary practitioner would not be naturally able to, or wish to, figure out how to radially-shrink the guide device of Sano to actually pull this off, since Sano has very little radial clearance between the winding heads and the inner wall of the housing.
With respect to claim 12, and claims 13 and 14 which depend from it, the prior art of record does not teach or reasonably suggest a rotary electrical machine extending along a longitudinal axis X, having a rotor and a wound stator having winding heads, the rotor and the stator being arranged in a casing having an internal wall, the rotor having at least one channel for distribution of a cooling fluid, the cooling fluid being ejected from the rotor by centrifugal force, the machine having at least one guide device arranged radially between the winding heads of the stator and the internal wall of the casing, wherein the guide device does not overlap axially with the winding heads of the stator over any non-zero distance,
the guide device being configured to orient the cooling fluid ejected from the rotor to the winding heads of the stator;
wherein the guide device comprises at least one vertical wall extending from the internal wall of the casing to the winding heads.
Swales does not teach such a vertical wall required by the last clause (claim 12). One reference is exemplary of the few that exist which do feature this structure: Striedelmeyer (DE 102019215402 A1 – provided herein with machine translation).
PNG
media_image9.png
312
518
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Without repeating the reasoning too much that was put forth in the indication of allowability of claim 5 above (although that reasoning parallels this reasoning), the Examiner will focus on just one point; Striedlmeyer does not have the guide device dealing with cooling fluid being radially fed from the rotor via centrifugal force, and therefore cannot anticipate claim 1 in order to anticipate claim 12. Striedlmeyer is solving a different problem from Swales (governing coolant flow out of a cylindrical gap between the stator and the housing), such that combining Striedlmeyer’s vertical wall with (adding it to) Swales would actually result in cooling fluid, having been flung centrifugally outwardly from the rotor, deflecting off the vertical wall and away from the winding heads of Swales. So, again, the Examiner believes that modifying Swales with Striedlmeyer’s vertical wall would require either a) more-than-ordinary skill in the art or b) hindsight reasoning in light of the instant application.
With respect to claim 15, and claim 16 which depends from it, the prior art of record does not teach or reasonably suggest a rotary electrical machine extending along a longitudinal axis X, having a rotor and a wound stator having winding heads, the rotor and the stator being arranged in a casing having an internal wall, the rotor having at least one channel for distribution of a cooling fluid, the cooling fluid being ejected from the rotor by centrifugal force, the machine having at least one guide device arranged radially between the winding heads of the stator and the internal wall of the casing, wherein the guide device does not overlap axially with the winding heads of the stator over any non-zero distance,
the guide device being configured to orient the cooling fluid ejected from the rotor to the winding heads of the stator;
wherein the guide device comprises at least one wire mesh part.
Swales does not teach such a wire mesh part required by the last clause (claim 15). One reference does teach this feature: Takahashi (US 2011/0316367 A1) teaches the wire mesh feature and even, in the embodiment of fig. 8A, teaches it a context wherein the guide device does not overlap axially with the winding heads of the stator over any non-zero distance.
PNG
media_image10.png
240
475
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
178
346
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Again without repeating the reasoning too much that was put forth in the indication of allowability of claims 5 and 12 above (although that reasoning parallels this reasoning), the Examiner will focus on just one point; Takahashi does not have the guide device dealing with cooling fluid being radially fed from the rotor via centrifugal force, and therefore cannot anticipate claim 1 in order to anticipate claim 15. Takahashi is solving a different problem from Swales (dripping cooling fluid onto the winding heads), such that combining Takahashi’s mesh part with (adding it to) Swales would actually result in cooling fluid, having been flung centrifugally outwardly from the rotor, pushing the cooling fluid already on the mesh part of Takahashi up and off-course from its destination which is the winding heads. So, again, the Examiner believes that modifying Swales with Takahashi would require either a) more-than-ordinary skill in the art or b) hindsight reasoning in light of the instant application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Striedlmeyer (DE 102019215402 A1) has been newly included in attached PTO Form 892 and is relevant to the discussion of allowable subject matter in claim 12.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL K SCHLAK whose telephone number is (703)756-1685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:00 pm 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, 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.
/Daniel K Schlak/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights