DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1. Applicant argues on page 8-9 of the remarks regarding the limitations of claim 9 moved into claim 1, “the Examiner stated that "windings are required in induction type electromagnetic pumps." Page 6. Although this may be true, Kolomoisky lacks the recited "electromagnetic pumping system comprises a plurality of electromagnetic pump windings."
Rather, Kolomoisky uses electromagnetic leakage flux to drive the flow. "[T]he electric machine 2 utilizes its own electromagnetic field in order to drive the cooling agent without using external power sources such pumps or blowers." Paragraph [0061]. Given such, Kolondjovski clearly does not show the use of electromagnetic pump windings to pump the conductive fluid separate and apart from the electrical machine 2. The Applicant thus asserts that independent claim 1 as amended, and the dependent claims thereon, are patentable over the cited reference.” (The same argument is made for independent claim 16.)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, because regarding the "electromagnetic pumping system comprises a plurality of electromagnetic pump windings" the Applicant admits in their argument, agreeing with the Examiner, that it is true that windings are required in induction type electromagnetic pumps. Therefore, Kolondjovski teaches the limitation.
Regarding the Applicant’s emphasis on paragraphs 0061 and 0063 to argue that Kolondjovski does not show the use of the pump windings to pump the conductive fluids. The Applicant is relying on an alternate embodiment that does not use a pump. However, paragraph 0059 teaches an embodiment that uses a pump stating, “a flow of cooling agent comprising liquid metal or liquid metal alloy is provided through the cooling channel of the electrical machine by means of a magnetohydrodynamic pump.” This is clearly shown in Figure 1 of Kolondjovski. Therefore, Kolondjovski teaches the limitation.
2. Applicant argues on page 9-10 of the remarks regarding claim 13 stating, “Kolondjovski simply describes the heat exchanger 111 as "configured to dissipate heat from the cooling agent to the ambient." Paragraph [0036]. A heat exchanger configured to dissipate heat to the ambient would be an air-cooled heat exchanger as compared to a heat exchanger using a cooling fluid. Second, an air-cooled heat exchanger cannot be considered a counter-flow heat exchanger. Moreover, Kolondjovski is completely silent on any type of counter-flow.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, because the heat exchanger of Kolondjovski clearly teaches a heat exchanger using a cooling fluid in paragraphs 0010, 0014, 0019, and 0059 as well as table . on page 3 of the specification. Second, the Applicant’s argument that paragraph 0036 disclosing the heat exchanger is "configured to dissipate heat from the cooling agent to the ambient" suggest the disclosed heat exchanger is can only be an air-cooled heat exchanger while simultaneously arguing the prior art does not specify any specific type of heat exchanger. Paragraph 0063 broadly includes various types of heat exchangers disclosing “the electrical machine 2 moves the cooling agent towards the cooling means 11, such as a heat exchanger 111, where the cooling agent is cooled and the cooling agent is recirculated again into the electrical machine 2.” Although not explicit, the prior art implicitly discloses the cooling means such as a heat exchanger which would include an air-cooled, counter-flow, parallel-flow, and/or cross-flow heat exchanger. Therefore, Kolondjovski teaches the limitation.
3. Applicant argues on page 10 of the remarks that independent claim 15, “specifically recites "pumping a conductive fluid through direct cooled windings of the stator by a plurality of electromagnetic pump windings. As described above, Kolondjovski lacks both the direct cooled windings and the electromagnetic pump windings. The Applicant thus submits that independent claim 15 is patentable over the cited reference.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, because the Applicant has agreed and admitted above that the pump comprises electromagnetic pump windings. Further, Kolondjovski shows in figures 4 and 6 stator windings with the cooling flow path flowing directly through the windings. Paragraph 0049 states the cooling channel is situated in such a way to directly cool the stator winding. Therefore, Kolondjovski teaches both limitations.
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.
Claims 12 and 20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 12 and 20 recitation of “a conductive fluid isolator positioned about the coolant pathways and the heat exchanger” is new matter unsupported by the specification. Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation “a conductive fluid isolator” in the application as filed.
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 7, 12, and 20 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 7 recitation of “wherein the conductive fluid comprises aluminum alloys” is unclear how aluminum alloys are used as a conductive fluid for flowing through the coolant pathways of the direct cooled windings because aluminum alloy has an extremely high melting point of 660°C (1220°F). For example, standard electrical windings use solid copper or aluminum wires, and introducing a liquid metal at 660°C (1220°F) would destroy the insulation and the structural integrity of the device. Therefore, it is unclear which type of integrated electrical machine, if any, generates such high temperatures that it would be cooled by a conductive fluid such as aluminum with a melting point temperature of 660°C (1220°F).
For examining purposes, the Examiner is interpreting the aluminum alloy conductive fluid is not used for cooling the stator windings and instead metal alloys which are liquid at or near room temperature are used.
Claims 12 and 20 recitation of “a conductive fluid isolator positioned about the coolant pathways and the heat exchanger” is vague and indefinite because the term “conductive fluid isolator” is not mentioned or defined by the claim or the specification. Therefore, the term “conductive fluid isolator” is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. What is a conductive fluid isolator?
For examining purposes the Examiner is interpreting the conductive fluid isolator as a type of valve based on the placement of the previously claimed electrical isolator at the inlet/outlet of the heat exchanger conductive fluid in figure 2.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 10, 11, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kolondjovski (EP 4,102,691 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kolondjovski discloses an integrated electric machine, comprising:
a stator (22 of Figure 6);
a rotor (23 of Figure 6) positioned within the stator; and
an electromagnetic pumping system (14, 141 of Figure 1) in communication with the stator (via 3, 21 of Figures 1-7);
wherein the electromagnetic pumping system comprises a conductive fluid (Para. 0010); and
wherein the electromagnetic pumping system (14, 141 of Figure 1) comprises a plurality of electromagnetic pump windings (Para. 0066-0067, windings are required in induction type electromagnetic pumps) to pump the conductive fluid.
Regarding claim 2, Kolondjovski discloses wherein the stator (22 of Figure 6) comprises direct cooled windings (222 of Figures 2-5).
Regarding claim 3, Kolondjovski discloses wherein the direct cooled windings (222 of Figures 2-5) comprise coolant pathways (3, 21 of Figures 1-7) therethrough.
Regarding claim 5, Kolondjovski discloses wherein the conductive fluid (Para. 0010) flows through the coolant pathways (3, 21 of Figures 1-7) of the direct cooled windings (222 of Figures 2-5).
Regarding claim 6, Kolondjovski discloses wherein the conductive fluid comprises liquid sodium, sodium–potassium alloys, or lithium (Para. 0016).
Regarding claim 10, Kolondjovski discloses wherein the electromagnetic pump windings operate via conduction (Para. 0063, 0065), induction (Para. 0066-0067), or thermoelectric.
Regarding claim 11, Kolondjovski discloses wherein the electromagnetic pumping system (14, 141 of Figure 1) comprises a heat exchanger (11, 111 of Figure 1, 6) in communication with the coolant pathways (3, 21 of Figures 1-7) of the direct cooled windings (222 of Figures 2-5).
Regarding claim 13, Kolondjovski discloses wherein the heat exchanger (11, 111 of Figure 1, 6) comprises a counter-flow heat exchanger (11, 111 of Figure 1, 6) with a cooling fluid (Para. 0010).
Regarding claim 14, Kolondjovski discloses wherein the integrated electric machine comprises a motor or a generator (Para. 0002, 0011).
Regarding claim 15, Kolondjovski discloses a method of cooling an integrated electric machine having a rotor (23 of Figure 6) and a stator (22 of Figure 6), comprising:
pumping a conductive fluid (Para. 0010) through direct cooled windings (222 of Figures 2-5) of the stator by a plurality of electromagnetic pump windings (Para. 0066-0067, windings are required in induction type electromagnetic pumps);
absorbing heat in the conductive fluid from the direct cooled windings of the stator;
pumping the conductive fluid to a heat exchanger (11, 111 of Figure 1, 6); and
cooling the conductive fluid in the heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 16, Kolondjovski discloses an integrated electric machine, comprising:
a stator (22 of Figure 6) with a plurality of direct cooled windings (222 of Figures 2-5);
a rotor (23 of Figure 6) positioned within the stator; and
an electromagnetic pumping system (14, 141 of Figure 1) in communication with the plurality of direct cooled windings of the stator (via 3, 21 of Figures 1-7);
wherein the electromagnetic pumping system comprises a conductive fluid (Para. 0010) flowing therethrough;
wherein the electromagnetic pumping system comprises a plurality of electromagnetic pump windings (Para. 0066-0067, windings are required in induction type electromagnetic pumps) to pump the conductive fluid through the direct cooled windings (222 of Figures 2-5).
Regarding claim 17, Kolondjovski discloses wherein the direct cooled windings (222 of Figures 2-5) comprise coolant pathways (3, 21 of Figures 1-7) therethrough.
Regarding claim 19, Kolondjovski discloses wherein the electromagnetic pumping system (14, 141 of Figure 1) comprises a heat exchanger (11, 111 of Figure 1, 6) in communication with the coolant pathways (3, 21 of Figures 1-7) of the direct cooled windings (222 of Figures 2-5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolondjovski (EP 4,102,691 A1), in view of Peysakhovich (US 2004/0219026).
Regarding claim 7, Kolondjovski discloses all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein the conductive fluid (Para. 0010) comprises aluminum alloys.
Peysakhovich discloses wherein the conductive fluid comprises aluminum alloys (Para. 0023).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have the conductive fluid of Kolondjovski comprise aluminum alloy, as taught by Peysakhovich, in systems designed to utilize hot molten metals [Peysakhovich: Para. 0023].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolondjovski (EP 4,102,691 A1), in view of Corbin (US 2022/0051820).
Regarding claim 8, Kolondjovski discloses all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein the conductive fluid (Para. 0010) comprises molten salts or brine.
Corbin discloses wherein the conductive fluid comprises molten salts or brine (Para. 0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have the conductive fluid of Kolondjovski comprise molten salts or brine, as taught by Corbin, in order to absorb heat from a primary coolant passing through the heat exchanger [Corbin: Para. 0036].
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolondjovski (EP 4,102,691 A1), in view of Shu (US 2022/004633).
Regarding claims 12, 20, Kolondjovski discloses all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above, however does not explicitly disclose further comprising a conductive fluid isolator positioned about the coolant pathways (3, 21 of Figures 1-7) and the heat exchanger (11, 111 of Figure 1, 6).
Shu discloses further comprising a conductive fluid isolator (63 of Figure 2) positioned about the coolant pathways (6 of Figure 2) and the heat exchanger (see Figure 1; Para. 0025).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have a conductive fluid isolator positioned in the coolant pathway of Kolondjovski, as taught by Shu, so that the flow of the lubricant in the first path can be flexibly controlled, which can facilitate operations such as system operation and maintenance, and repair, commissioning and replacement of devices [Shu: Para. 0031].
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fischer (US 4,182,650), Shutayfi (US 2024/0047089), Eckert (US 2005/0167075) disclose an electromagnetic pump comprising molten salt as a conductive fluid.
Lovell (US 3,162,134) discloses an electromagnetic pump comprising electromagnetic pump windings operated via conduction.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHARLES H REID whose telephone number is (571)272-9248. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-4:45 PM.
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.
/Charles Reid Jr./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834