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 February 2026. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed: claims 1-16 were previously pending; claims 17-20 were added by the amendment; and thus, claims 1-20 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed 19 February 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s first argument (page 8 of the Remarks) alleges that the claims previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been amended to overcome said grounds of rejection. However, while the other grounds are withdrawn, the amendment to claim 9 does not clarify the claim scope. While the language “optimized based on shapes and/or mechanisms found in nature” is more easily understood than “bionically optimized”, it is still unclear what structure corresponds to this language. As such, claim 9 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
The Applicant’s second argument (pages 8-10 of the Remarks) alleges that the claims are now in condition for allowance because Chernogorski does not disclose the amended limitation of claim 1, requiring that the filling extend only to the inner surface of the tooth collar portions. While Chernogorski clearly does not disclose this new limitation, new grounds of rejection have been made in view of the newly cited Kawamura reference.
The Applicant’s third argument (pages 10-14 of the Remarks) alleges that the remaining previously-cited references do not render obvious the newly added limitations of claim 1, discussed above. Since none of these references have been applied to address the new limitation of claim 1, this argument is moot.
The Applicant’s fourth argument (pages 14-15 of the Remarks) alleges that the previously applied references do not disclose the limitations of new claims 17-20. However, these references have not been applied to any of the new claims. Since the newly cited Kawamura reference does disclose these features, new grounds of rejection have been made below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 21 January 2026 was/were filed after mailing of the first action on the merits. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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.
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) 20 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 20 recites that the collar portions of the teeth “positively secure the filling” without “a cover slide or any other component configured to secure the filling from centrifugal forces”. While the specification discusses the lack of a “cover slide” around the rotor, it does not explicitly rule out every other possible structure for securing the filling against centrifugal forces. As such, this limitation constitutes new matter.
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(s) 9 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the bridge surfaces comprising “geometry optimized based on shapes and/or mechanisms found in nature”. The scope of this limitation is unclear as the specification does not identify to what structure(s) the recited geometry refers. Thus, the claim is not supported by any corresponding structure, material, or acts in the specification disclosure. See Donaldson, 16 F.3d at 1195, 29 USPQ2d at 1850; and MPEP § 2181. As such, the above limitation renders the claim indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10, 14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kawamura et al. (US 2009/0302695 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Kawamura”.
Regarding claim 1, Kawamura discloses a rotor device for an externally excited electric machine [2], comprising at least one rotor [2a] with a rotor base body [2f] with a plurality of rotor teeth [2t] (fig. 1-5; ¶ 0028-0029),
wherein axially extending receiving grooves [2g] are arranged for receiving at least one winding portion [2e] of a rotor winding [2e] wound on the rotor teeth [2t] between the rotor teeth [2t] (fig. 3-5; ¶ 0029),
wherein a filling [9a] for fixing the rotor winding [2e] is arranged in the receptacle receiving grooves [2g] (fig. 4-5; ¶ 0029, 0031), and
wherein the rotor teeth [2t] comprise at least one collar portion [2co] at their radially outer end, which positively secures the filling [9a] in the receiving grooves [2g] (fig. 4-5; ¶ 0031; the filling abuts radially inner surfaces of the collar portions), and
PNG
media_image1.png
603
824
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein a radially outermost surface of the filling [9a] extends to a radially inner surface of the collar portions [2co] which positively secure the filling [9a] in the receiving grooves [2g] (fig. 4-5; ¶ 0031; the filling abuts radially inner surfaces of the collar portions).
Regarding claim 2, Kawamura discloses the rotor device according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the collar portions [2co] of the rotor teeth [2t] positively secure the filling [9a] from centrifugal forces occurring during an intended operation and wherein the filling [9a] is configured to withstand the centrifugal forces (fig. 4-5; ¶ 0031; the filling abuts radially inner surfaces of the collar portions, thereby preventing it from moving outward in the radial direction).
Regarding claim 3, Kawamura discloses the rotor device according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the rotor teeth [2t] each comprise at least one support portion [sp] limiting the receiving groove [2g] in a circumferential direction (fig. 4-5),
wherein the winding portion [2e] extends on the support portion [sp] (fig. 4-5),
wherein the collar portion [2co] adjoins the support portion [sp] radially outwards (fig. 4-5), and
wherein the collar portion [2co] projects beyond the support portion [sp] in the circumferential direction and partially closes the receiving groove [2g] radially outward (fig. 3-5).
Regarding claim 4, Kawamura discloses the rotor device according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the filling [9a] comprises bridge surfaces [9bs] which extend in each case between the collar portions [2co] of rotor teeth [2t] which are adjacent in the circumferential direction and do not touch the collar portions [2co] (fig. 4-5; ¶ 0033-0034; the “surface area” of each groove is defined by the concave surface of the resin molding, which is shaped to increase heat transfer).
Regarding claim 5, Kawamura discloses the rotor device according to claim 4, as stated above, wherein the bridge surfaces [9bs] are each configured to be recessed (fig. 4-5; ¶ 0033).
Regarding claim 6, Kawamura discloses the rotor device according to claim 4, as stated above, wherein the bridge surfaces [9bs] each comprise a radially inwardly curved trough (fig. 4-5; ¶ 0033).
Regarding claim 7, Kawamura discloses the rotor device according to claim 4, as stated above, wherein the bridge surfaces [9bs] are curved radially inwards in a parabolic shape (fig. 4; ¶ 0033).
Regarding claim 8, Kawamura discloses the rotor device according to claim 4, as stated above, wherein the bridge surfaces [9bs] extend radially inwards in a V-shape (fig. 4; ¶ 0033).
Regarding claim 9, Kawamura discloses the rotor device according to claim 4, as stated above, wherein the bridge surfaces [9bs] comprise geometry optimized based on shapes and/or mechanisms found in nature (fig. 4-5; ¶ 0033; since the specification does not associate any specific structure with this limitation, it has been interpreted as referring to the radially inwardly curved surface of the bridge surface, as disclosed above).
Regarding claim 10, Kawamura discloses the rotor device according to claim 4, as stated above, wherein the collar portions [2co] project beyond the bridge surfaces [9bs] in sections, the bridge surfaces [9bs] being spaced apart from the collar portions [2co] opposite (fig. 4-5; ¶ 0033; the collar portions extend radially outwardly from the outer surfaces of the resin).
Regarding claim 14, Kawamura discloses the rotor device according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the filling [9a] embeds the winding portions [2e] and fills a space between the winding portions [2e] extending in the receiving grooves [2g] (fig. 3-5; ¶ 0029).
Regarding claim 16, Kawamura discloses the rotor device according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the externally excited electric machine [2] is an externally excited synchronous motor (fig. 1-5; ¶ 0028-0031; there is no difference in structure implied by the above terms, as the stator and rotor structures of Kawamura are identical to those as claimed).
Regarding claim 17, Kawamura discloses the rotor device according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein a radial extent of the filling [9a] is less than a radial extent of each of the rotor teeth [2t] (fig. 4-5; ¶ 0033; the collar portions of the rotor teeth extend radially outwardly from the outer surfaces of the resin).
Regarding claim 18, Kawamura discloses the rotor device according to claim 2, as stated above, wherein the rotor device does not include a cover slide (fig. 1-5; no “cover slide”, i.e. sleeve surrounding the rotor, is present).
Regarding claim 19, Kawamura discloses the rotor device accordingly to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the collar portions [2co] of the rotor teeth [2t] are configured to positively secure the filling [9a] from centrifugal forces occurring during an intended operation independently of any other component in the rotor device (fig. 4-5; ¶ 0031; the filling abuts radially inner surfaces of the collar portions, thereby preventing it from moving outward in the radial direction).
Regarding claim 20, Kawamura discloses a rotor device for an externally excited electric machine [2], comprising at least one rotor [2a] with a rotor base body [2f] with a plurality of rotor teeth [2t] (fig. 1-5; ¶ 0028-0029),
wherein axially extending receiving grooves [2g] are arranged for receiving at least one winding portion [2e] of a rotor winding [2e] wound on the rotor teeth [2t] between the rotor teeth [2t] (fig. 3-5; ¶ 0029),
wherein a filling [9a] for fixing the rotor winding [2e] is arranged in the receiving grooves [2g] (fig. 4-5; ¶ 0029, 0031), and
PNG
media_image1.png
603
824
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the rotor teeth [2t] comprise at least one collar portion [2co] at their radially outer end, which positively secures the filling [9a] in the receiving grooves [2g] (fig. 4-5; ¶ 0031; the filling abuts radially inner surfaces of the collar portions), and
wherein the collar portions [2co] of the rotor teeth [2t] are configured to positively secure the filling [9a] from centrifugal forces occurring during an intended operation independently of any other component in the rotor device (fig. 4-5; ¶ 0031; the filling abuts radially inner surfaces of the collar portions, thereby preventing it from moving outward in the radial direction), such that the rotor device does not include a cover slide or any other component configured to secure the filling from centrifugal forces (fig. 1-5; no “cover slide”, i.e. sleeve surrounding the rotor, is present; nor is any other component for securing the filling, besides the collar portions of the teeth).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 11-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura in view of Chernogorski (DE 102018220810 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Chernogorski”.
Regarding claim 11, Kawamura discloses the rotor device according to claim 1, as stated above. Kawamura does not disclose that at least one cooling channel for cooling the rotor [2a] is configured in the filling [9a].
Chernogorski discloses a rotor device for an externally excited electric machine, comprising at least one rotor [10] with a rotor base body [16b] with a plurality of rotor teeth [16t] (fig. 1-2; 0023, 0025; the central portion of the rotor surrounds shaft 14 and has radially extending poles projecting therefrom),
wherein axially extending receiving grooves [16s] are arranged for receiving at least one winding portion [15] of a rotor winding [15] wound on the rotor teeth [16t] between the rotor teeth [16t] (fig. 2; " 0023-0025),
wherein a filling [25] for fixing the rotor winding [15] is arranged in the receptacle grooves [16s] (fig. 2; 1 0025; "potting compound 25" is filled between the teeth), and
wherein the rotor teeth [16t] comprise at least one collar portion [16c] at their radially outer end, which positively secures the filling [25] in the receiving groove [16s] (fig. 2; 1 0025; the potting compound extends between the pole shoes of adjacent teeth, with corners of the pole shoes interlocking with the compound which prevents it from moving in the radial direction); and
wherein at least one cooling channel [24] for cooling the rotor [10] is configured in the filling [25] (fig. 2; ¶ 0025).
PNG
media_image2.png
399
587
media_image2.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 implement the filling of Kawamura having a cooling channel as taught by Chernogorski, in order to reduce the temperature of the rotor winding thereby increasing power density and reducing the material costs of the electrical machine (¶ 0018 of Chernogorski).
Regarding claim 12, Kawamura, in view of Chernogorski, discloses the rotor device according to claim 11, as stated above, wherein Chernogorski further discloses at least one rotor shaft [14] (fig. 1-2; 1 0023), wherein the at least one cooling channel [24] can be supplied with a cooling fluid via a supply channel [18] extending in the rotor shaft [14] (fig. 1; I 0024).
Regarding claim 13, Kawamura discloses the rotor device according to claim 4, as stated above. Kawamura does not disclose that at least one cooling channel for cooling the rotor [2a] is configured in the filling [9a], and wherein the at least one cooling channel is formed at least in sections below the bridge surfaces [9bs].
Chernogorski discloses a rotor device for an externally excited electric machine, comprising at least one rotor [10] with a rotor base body [16b] with a plurality of rotor teeth [16t] (fig. 1-2; 0023, 0025; the central portion of the rotor surrounds shaft 14 and has radially extending poles projecting therefrom),
wherein at least one cooling channel [24] for cooling the rotor [10] is configured in the filling [25] (fig. 2; ¶ 0025), and wherein the at least one cooling channel [24] is formed at least in sections below the bridge surfaces [bs] (fig. 2; ¶ 0025; a separate axial channel is formed in the filling located in each of the slots).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the filling of Kawamura having a cooling channel as taught by Chernogorski, in order to reduce the temperature of the rotor winding thereby increasing power density and reducing the material costs of the electrical machine (¶ 0018 of Chernogorski).
Regarding claim 15, Kawamura, in view of Chernogorski, discloses the rotor device according to claim 11, as stated above, wherein Chernogorski further discloses that the at least one cooling channel [24] in the filling [25] extends in an axial direction in at least some of the receiving grooves [16s] (fig. 2; ¶ 0025; a separate axial channel is formed in the filling located in each of the slots).
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