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. Claims 1-21 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 February, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant lays out the rejection status of the various claims and then focuses on claim 1, rejected as anticipated by Bradfield.
Applicant states that amended claim 1 recites “wherein the guide device does not overlap radially with the winding heads of the stator over a non-zero distance” and then states that the guide device [cover 56] of Bradfield and the winding heads [24] overlap radially over a non-zero distance. The Examiner has shown, in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below, that he is interpreting “radially” to mean “axially”, meaning that he believes the Applicant is saying that the overlap of Bradfield is such that if one looked along the axis of the machine of Bradfield, he or she would be not be able to see (if everything else were removed) both the winding heads and the guide device, but that if one looked along the axis of the machine of the present invention, he or she would be able to see both the winding heads and the guide device. To pursue the prosecution and keep it moving as uninterruptedly as possible, the Examiner has made the interpretation based on standard usage of the terms radial and axial in the motor arts (see below). However, so as not to be dismissive of Applicant’s terminology, the Examiner has attempted to deal with the alternative contingency (that Applicant actually does mean radially and in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) of claim 1, the Examiner has shown that Bradfield reads on the claim, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, whether the meanings of radial and axial are switched or not.
The Examiner concurs that Bradfield does teach wherein the guide device [56] and the winding heads [24] overlap radially over a non-zero distance. However, there is another non-zero distance wherein they do not overlap (see 102 rejection and also the excerpt from fig. 7B attached after this paragraph), meaning that the claim limitation, inserted during the most recent amendment, does not by itself define over Bradfield, as established in more detail in the rejection below.
PNG
media_image1.png
289
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to formal matters, Applicant asserts that the corrected drawing sheet overcomes the objection to fig. 5 from the prior Office Action. The drawing sheet is accepted, the objection is withdrawn.
Applicant asserts that the amendment to the title and claims overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the claim objection, and the objection to the specification put forth in the prior Office Action. The Examiner concurs; those claim objection, the specification objection, and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn (although new ones have been raised herein).
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, the limitation “openings each extends…” should be changed to “openings each extend…”
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, the word “plain” should be changed to “plane”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-21 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.
Claim 1, in line 7, recites “the guide device does not overlap radially with the winding heads of the stator over a non-zero distance”.
This language was not present in the application as originally filed and the Examiner is using the remarks to establish how it is supported by the specification. Clearly, in all of the embodiments, there is a radial overlap between the guide device and the winding heads. The Examiner has attached annotated excerpts of figs. 1, 5, and 7 to show a standard interpretation of what the “radial overlap” would be using normal terminology in the art. Because the definition of “radial overlap” was not established another way in the specification as filed, the term must be interpreted by only the meaning of its constituent words, meaning that in the radial direction, one of them overlaps the other.
PNG
media_image2.png
383
1246
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is apparent from the remarks that Applicant, when using “radial”, means what the Examiner would usually see, and understand, as “axial”. Therefore, the Office has not rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), even though the claim language is not supported by the Application as filed. This reversal of directions (this is known as a cylindrical coordinate system) seems to be an oversight or just a small error of terminology and the Examiner will interpret the claims, for examination on the merits, using the clearly intended meaning of Applicant, in order to advance prosecution (which is, specifically, that the “guide device does not overlap axially with the winding heads…”). Because the claims must be examined on the merits herein, the Examiner will forego using the common interpretation of “radially overlap” in applying the art because the Examiner is requesting Applicant to change “radial” to “axial” in the claim, and expects the limitation to either be corrected by amendment or removed in response to the art-based rejections. No new-matter objection/rejection will ensue from such a correction if made in the response.
However, if the limitation is to be kept by Applicant going forward, the terminology must be corrected to accord with standard practice.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 12, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bradfield (US 2011/0298316 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Bradfield teaches a rotary electrical machine [10] (see ¶ 0016) extending along a longitudinal axis X [40] (originally labeled in fig. 1 but the Examiner has labeled it again in the annotated joint excerpt of figs. 5 and 7B below since the label was omitted), having a rotor [combined rotor 20, output shaft 28, balance ring 36, and agitator member 38] (see ¶ 0016, 0019, and 0021, the latter of which recites “an agitator member 38 can be a ring-shaped member coupled to the rotor…”) and a wound stator [22] having winding heads [end turns 24] (see ¶ 0016), the rotor [20] and the stator [22] being arranged in a casing [14] (originally labeled in fig. 1 but the Examiner has labeled it again in the annotated joint excerpt of figs. 5 and 7B below since the label was omitted) having an internal wall [inner wall 18] (still referring to ¶ 0016), the rotor [20/28/36/38] having at least one channel [agitator channels 54] (see ¶ 0032) for distribution of a cooling fluid, (¶ 0033 recites “agitator channels 54 can be of sufficient size to allow passage of a portion of the coolant through the agitator channels 54, as described below”), the cooling fluid being ejected from the rotor by centrifugal force {¶ 0031 recites “because the agitator member 34 can synchronously rotate with the rotor 20 and/or the rotor hub 30, centrifugal force can force the coolant away from the agitator member 38 so that the coolant can be dispersed onto the stator end turns 24…” and ¶ 0033 recites “the agitator channels 54 can be sized and positioned so that another portion of the coolant that reaches the agitator member 38 can continue to be substantially radially slung toward the stator end turns 24…” and ¶ 0034 recites “coolant expelled near the rotor hub 30 can flow radially outward toward the housing 12 (e.g., due to centrifugal force). A portion of the coolant can reach the radially proximal surface 44 of the agitator member 38, and the agitator channels 54 can provide a pathway for the coolant to flow between the radially proximal surface and the radially distal surface…”}. the machine [10] having at least one guide device [cover 56] arranged radially between the winding heads [24] of the stator [22] and the internal wall [18] of the casing [14] (18, 24, and 56 all overlap the “radial line” drawing in gray by the Examiner in the fig. 7B excerpt),
PNG
media_image3.png
561
923
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wherein the guide device [56] does not overlap axially [see rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), above] with the winding heads [24] of the stator [22] over a non-zero distance (the Examiner has attached a new annotated, enlarged snapshot from fig. 7B below, wherein he has labeled the non-zero distance, as well as an overlap distance, to show that there is a distinct and existent non-zero distance of the guide device that does not axially overlap with the winding heads – it is noted that, using this broadest reasonable interpretation, even if the Examiner were to interpret the claim language as “overlap radially”, which is the actual wording of the limitation, a “non-zero distance” could also be bracketed off in fig. 7B that does not overlap “radially” with the winging head);
PNG
media_image1.png
289
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the guide device [56] being configured to orient the cooling fluid (¶ 0038 recites “the cover can help concentrate the flowing coolant within the stator cavity 52 so that the coolant can remain in contact with or near the stator end turns 24 for a prolonged time”) ejected from the rotor [20/28/36/38], to the winding heads [24] of the stator [22].
{Examiner note – the embodiment of fig. 7B, which comprises the guide devices 56, is not the same embodiment shown in figs. 1-5 – however, it is a modification of the previous embodiment(s) and has corresponding reference numerals, thus it builds on the earlier embodiment(s) and simply adds the guide devices – absent explicit indication to prove otherwise, the embodiment of fig. 7B is taken to have all the components and features of the embodiment(s) of figs. 1-5, except where the modifications of 7B are described, the latter simply being supplements to the already purported earlier embodiment(s)}.
With respect to claim 2/1, Bradfield teaches the machine of claim 1, and further teaches a supply [cooling jacket 59 and feed port 62, as well as the holes 60 which are not described in the specification] through the casing [14], the cooling fluid coming from the casing [14] being able to be oriented toward the winding heads [24] by the guide device [56] (¶ 0038 recites “the cooling jacket 59 can receive the coolant from a feed port 62, as shown in figs. 6-7B, in fluid communication with the fluid source. After the coolant flows into the stator cavity 58, the cover 56 can help concentrate the flowing coolant with the stator cavity 52 so that the coolant can remain in contact with or near the stator end turns 24 for a prolonged time period in order to help transfer more heat energy”).
PNG
media_image4.png
563
476
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3/1, Bradfield teaches the machine of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the guide device [56] is at least partially annular, in particular entirely annular (in a side cross-section as shown in fig. 7B, wherein everything depicted is meant to represent its circular extension into and out of the page, anything shown at the top and bottom, i.e. above as well as below the axis, is annular), when seen in cross section, the guide device [56] being able to be coaxial with a shaft [28] of the rotor [20/28/36/38] (see fig. 7B excerpt above).
With respect to claim 12/1, Bradfield teaches the machine of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the guide device [56] comprises at least one vertical wall (its major extension is along the radial direction, labeled in the fig. 7B excerpt attached below by the Examiner) extending from the internal wall [18] of the casing [14] to the winding heads [24].
PNG
media_image5.png
561
393
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 17/1, Bradfield teaches the machine of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the guide device [56] comprises means of attachment {this claim has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112f, see relevant section above – the Examiner has found the support for this means in ¶ 0142 and figs. 16-17 of the application, and has attempted to determine what the attachment means is – it appears to be a hole for a fastener, but the description in ¶ 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.} to the casing [14] (¶ 0038 of Bradfield recites “the cover 56 can be coupled to the inner wall 18 by press fitting, friction fitting, threaded fasteners, or a similar coupling manner…” – the Examiner believes that the “threaded fastener” is as close of a device that can be compared to the attachment means of claim 17 as there could reasonably be, since there is no complete description of the attachment means in the specification to actually compare to the art).
With respect to claim 18/1, Bradfield teaches a rotary electrical machine [10] according to claim 1, and further teaches a method for cooling a rotating electrical machine [10] according to claim 1, wherein the rotor [20/28/36/38] is supplied with cooling fluid (¶ 0031 recites “because the agitator member 34 can synchronously rotate with the rotor 20 and/or the rotor hub 30, centrifugal force can force the coolant away from the agitator member 38 so that the coolant can be dispersed onto the stator end turns 24…” and ¶ 0033 recites “the agitator channels 54 can be sized and positioned so that another portion of the coolant that reaches the agitator member 38 can continue to be substantially radially slung toward the stator end turns 24…” and ¶ 0034 recites “coolant expelled near the rotor hub 30 can flow radially outward toward the housing 12 (e.g., due to centrifugal force). A portion of the coolant can reach the radially proximal surface 44 of the agitator member 38, and the agitator channels 54 can provide a pathway for the coolant to flow between the radially proximal surface and the radially distal surface…”), which is oriented by the guide device [56] towards the winding heads [24] of the stator [22] (¶ 0038 recites “the cover can help concentrate the flowing coolant within the stator cavity 52 so that the coolant can remain in contact with or near the stator end turns 24 for a prolonged time”).
With respect to claim 19/18/1, Bradfield teaches the method of claim 18, and further teaches wherein the cooling fluid is not pressurized (¶ 0028 recites “some of the coolant can be dispersed past the stator end turns 24 or, for example, splash or drip from the stator end turns 24 onto the radially distal surface 42” – it is noted that dripping fluid is a state of fluid not under external pressurization – further, it is noted that the reference does not mention pressurizing the cooling fluid).
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 4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradfield in view of Nakamori (US 2011/0181136 A1).
With respect to claim 4/3/1, Bradfield teaches the machine of claim 3, but omits teaching wherein the guide device comprises an internal surface and an external surface and openings provided between the external surface and the internal surface.
Nakamori discloses a rotary electric machine [2] comprising a housing [case 3] that contains a stator [10] and a rotor [5], the stator [10] further including winding heads [coil end portions 11/12] (see ¶ 0045-0046). Nakamori further discloses a guide device [storage space forming member 4] for guiding the cooling fluid in relation to the winding heads [11/12] (see ¶ 0066).
PNG
media_image6.png
493
877
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Nakamori teaches wherein the guide device [4] comprises an internal surface and an external surface (see joint annotated excerpts of figs. 1, 7, and 10, attached above, wherein the Examiner has labeled the internal and external surface) and openings [25] provided between the external surface and the internal surface and/or reliefs [labeled in the fig. 10 excerpt, basically the obverse feature of the recessed portions 26 – see ¶ 0066) on the inner face [internal surface – see rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112b above] (it is noted that fig. 10 is a secondary embodiment, wherein the recessed portions result in the reliefs – but fig. 10 builds on the previous embodiments, particularly those of figs. 1, 6, and 7, and since the only difference described between them being the end wall [28] which accentuates the reliefs, which are otherwise shown in fig. 7, the embodiment of fig. 10 is taken to have all the elements of that of figs. 1, 6, and 7 except the modified end wall).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the machine of Bradfield, while incorporating external and internal surfaces with openings and/or reliefs on the guide surface, as taught by Nakamori, in order to axially overlap the winding heads with discharge openings, enabling the winding heads to be efficiently cooled by the cooling medium discharged from the openings (Nakamori ¶ 0064).
With respect to claim 6/4/3/1, Bradfield in view of Nakamori teaches the machine of claim 4, Nakamori further teaches wherein the openings [25] each extend along an elongation axis L [L1/L2/L3/L4] which is oblique in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis X of the machine (see annotated fig. 10 excerpt below, wherein the Examiner has approximated, and labeled, the elongation axes L1-L4 that are oblique to elongation axis L0, also labeled, all of these residing in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis X, said axis X approximated and labeled by the Examiner).
PNG
media_image7.png
495
718
media_image7.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 7/6/4/3/1, Bradfield in view of Nakamori teaches the machine of claim 6, Nakamori further teaches wherein the elongation axes [L1/L2/L3/L4] are oriented in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis X of the machine, in the same (i.e. all outward) oblique direction (each is clearly the same angle compared to the adjacent one as the others are compared to their own adjacent ones) forming a same plane (the plane of the lines) containing the longitudinal axis X (see fig. 10 excerpt above).
With respect to claim 8/6/4/3/1, Bradfield in view of Nakamori teaches the machine of claim 6, Nakamori further teaches wherein at least two openings [25] comprise elongation axes [L1/L2] oriented, in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis X of the machine, in two different (i.e. both outward, yet each rotated from the other by an angle equal to the angular distance between the openings) directions that are oblique (both are oblique to L0) and form different angles with a plane containing the longitudinal axis X (see fig. 10 excerpt above and also the rejection of claim 8).
With respect to claim 9/4/3/1, Bradfield in view of Nakamori teaches the machine of claim 4, but neither Bradfield nor Nakamori teaches wherein the openings have on the internal surface and/or on the external surface a surface area of between 5 and 350 mm2.
Nakamori in ¶ 0086 recites “the opening cross-sectional area of each cooling medium discharge opening 25 can be designed according to the amount of heat that is generated in a corresponding region of the coil end portion 11 to which the cooling medium is to be supplied...”
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 Bradfield in view of Nakamori, as prescribed by ¶ 0086 of Nakamori, 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 Nakamori’s drawings. Thus, not only would a person of ordinary skill in the art, while experimenting according to Nakamori’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 Nakamori’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.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradfield in view of Sano (US 2017/0012501 A1).
With respect to claim 10/1, Bradfield teaches the machine of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the guide device comprises a frustoconical part coaxial with the longitudinal axis X of the machine and oriented toward the winding heads.
Sano discloses an electric machine comprising a stator [21], the stator further comprising winding heads [coil end portions 23a], wherein within the stator there is a rotor [combined rotor 11, shaft 12, and scraping member 51] rotating to drive the shaft and which during rotation ejects cooling fluid (see abstract, ¶ 0005, and ¶ 0037-0038) outward to cool the winding heads [23a]. Sano further teaches a guide device [reflection portion 61].
Sano teaches wherein the guide device comprises a frustoconical part (inclined surface, see ¶ 0058 and the fig. 4A excerpt attached below) coaxial with the longitudinal axis (centered on the shaft 12) and oriented towards the winding heads.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the machine of Bradfield, while incorporating in the guide device a frustoconical part, as taught by Sano, in order to provide oil coolant splashed by centrifugal force and supplying it to the winding head (Sano ¶ 0058).
PNG
media_image8.png
325
465
media_image8.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 11/10/1, Bradfield in view of Sano teaches the machine of claim 10, Sano further teaches wherein the exterior surface of the frustoconical portion has an inclination of between 5 and 85o relative to the longitudinal axis [center axis of shaft 12] in a plane (the plane of fig. 4A) containing the longitudinal axis X of the machine (see fig. 4A excerpt attached above, wherein the Examiner has labeled the exterior surface).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradfield in view of Abe (WO 2010/041673 A1, reference provided in prior Office Action with machine translation).
With respect to claim 13/12/1, Bradfield teaches the machine of claim 12, but omits teaching wherein the vertical wall is in contact with the winding heads of the stator.
Abe discloses an electric machine comprising a stator [8], the stator further comprising winding heads [coil ends 9], wherein within the stator there is a rotor [6] and the stator is housed in a casing [1] having an internal wall. Extending from the internal wall is a guide device [guide plate 12] for guiding coolant (see abstract and ¶ 0019-0022 of the translation).
PNG
media_image9.png
530
576
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Abe teaches wherein the vertical wall [12] is in contact with the winding heads [9] of the stator [8] (see abstract which recites “cooling oil guide plates (12) that touch the tips of the coil ends (9)”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the machine of Bradfield, while structuring the guide device such that it is in contact with the winding heads, as taught by Abe, in order that the cooling oil is guided along the contact portion between the coil end and the cooling oil guide plate, making it possible to prevent the cooling oil from moving to the axial end portion of the winding head and dropping down, such that the cooling oil can be reliably brought into contact with the winding head, thereby increasing cooling efficiency (Abe ¶ 0028).
With respect to claim 14/13/12/1, Bradfield in view of Abe teaches the machine of claim 13, Bradfield further teaches wherein the vertical wall [56] is arranged radially at a non-zero distance (labeled by the Examiner in the fig. 7B excerpt attached above) from the winding heads [24] of the stator [22].
PNG
media_image10.png
559
516
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradfield in view of Takahashi (US 2011/0316367 A1).
With respect to claim 15/1, Bradfield teaches the machine of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the guide device comprises at least one mesh part.
Takahashi discloses an electrical machine [1] comprising a stator [20] having winding heads [coil end 25] and a guide device [oil guide 30] to guide oil to the winding head [25] (see abstract and ¶ 0090-0091).
PNG
media_image11.png
522
958
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Takahashi teaches, in the embodiment of fig. 3A, wherein the guide device [30] comprises at least one mesh part [combined first threadlike members 31 and second threadlike members 32] (see discussion of fig. 3A in ¶ 0096-0097 wherein the threadlike members together provide a plurality of “windows”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the machine of Bradfield, while structuring the guide device as a wire mesh part, as taught by Takahashi, in order to provide holes while creating interfacial tension between the edges of each hole in order to increase the resistance of flow passage through a corresponding hole (Takahashi ¶ 0103) while allowing the winding heads to resist damage from the guide devices (Takahashi ¶ 0104).
With respect to claim 16/15/1, Bradfield in view of Takahashi teaches the machine of claim 15, Takahashi further teaches wherein the wire mesh part (the guide device in fig. 2 shows the guide device 30 and fig. 3A is a specific embodiment for the guide device 30, there being no discussion of fig. 3A to indicate that it would not have the shape of 30 shown in fig. 2) has an inclination of between 0o and 45o relative to the longitudinal axis X (see enlarged snapshot of fig. 2 below, wherein the Examiner has approximated the longitudinal axis, labeled it “X”, and drawn an angle approximately 45o from the longitudinal axis, to show that the inclination of the wire guide device goes through a continuum of inclination angles from 0o to slightly less than 45o) of the machine in a plane (the plane of fig. 2) containing the longitudinal axis X of the machine.
PNG
media_image12.png
441
523
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Claims 21, 5, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradfield in view of Sakurada (JP 2019097347 A, provided herein with machine translation).
With respect to claim 21/3/1, Bradfield teaches the machine of claim 3, but omits teaching wherein the guide device comprises an internal surface and an external surface and reliefs provided on the internal surface.
Sakurada discloses a rotary electric machine with a rotor [18], a stator [20], and a cooling system comprising a flowing cooling medium that cools winding heads [coil ends 28] wherein the cooling system comprises a guide device [extension portion 42] near the winding heads [28] to manage the flow of the cooling medium (see abstract and flow arrows in figs. 2-3 and 5).
PNG
media_image13.png
460
832
media_image13.png
Greyscale
wherein the guide device [42] comprises an internal surface and an external surface (labeled by the Examiner in the joint annotated excerpt of figs. 1 and 5 above) and reliefs [guide walls 52] provided on the internal surface (see fig. 5 and ¶ 0031 of the provided translation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the machine of Bradfield, while incorporating reliefs on the internal surface, as taught by Sakurada, in order to catch the refrigerant splashed along the circumferential direction and drop the refrigerant onto the coil end (Sakurada ¶ 0031).
With respect to claim 5/21/3/1, Bradfield in view of Sakurada teaches the machine of claim 21, Sakurada further teaches wherein the reliefs are ribs (see fig. 5 above).
With respect to claim 20/5/21/3/1, Bradfield in view of Sakurada teaches the machine of claim 21, Sakurada further teaches wherein the reliefs are ribs extending parallel to the longitudinal axis of the machine [they extend into the page in fig. 5 and therefore have an axial extension, the axial direction (into the page in fig. 5, left-to-right in fig. 1) being along the center of the shaft].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Newly cited US 2014/0042841 A1 (see fig. 1 below) is a good representative of art the Examiner has reviewed whose guide device [68/74] has zero axial overlap with the winding heads. Applicant is requested to review this reference, and the other references in attached PTO Form 892, before further amending claim 1.
PNG
media_image14.png
434
541
media_image14.png
Greyscale
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 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