Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 04, 2026
Application No. 18/598,963

MOTOR RADIATOR

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Mar 07, 2024
Priority
Mar 23, 2023 — EU 23461536.7
Examiner
VAZIRI, MASOUD
Art Unit
2834
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3m
Est. Remaining
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allowance Rate
96 granted / 138 resolved
+1.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
163
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.1%
-37.9% vs TC avg
§103
55.7%
+15.7% vs TC avg
§102
26.0%
-14.0% vs TC avg
§112
14.8%
-25.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 138 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Claims 1, 3-15 are pending. Drawings The drawings were received on 03/16/2026. The replacement drawing is acceptable. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-10, filed 3/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-14 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, Examiner agrees that Bott does not disclose a plurality of protrusions dispersed on the outer surface of a cooling channel. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yang et al., (CN 107623390 A), an admitted prior art by Applicant. As will be shown in the next section, Yang in figs. 1A-3D teaches dispersing cooling fins on any of the inner surfaces of a cooling channel. Claim Objections Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: claim 5 depends on the cancelled claim 2. In this Office action, it is assumed that claim 5 depends on claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 1, 5-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bott et al., (US 20210036590 A1) in view of Yang et al., (CN 107623390 A). PNG media_image1.png 350 520 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 291 395 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 289 400 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 289 344 media_image4.png Greyscale Regarding claim 1, Bott discloses a cooling structure for a rotary electric motor (abstract: “a method for producing a cooling structure over a surface of a housing of a dynamo-electric rotational machine”), the cooling structure comprising an annular radiator body (figs. 3 and 7) that axially extends along the rotary electric motor between a first end (first end, annotated fig. 7) and a second end (first end, annotated fig. 7), the annular radiator body comprising: a plurality of isolated channels (channels, annotated figs. 5) arranged in an annular configuration and extending between the first end and the second end (para [0064]: “The fins 4 preferably extend from a front axial end of the machine M to a rear axial end of the machine M.”), each isolated channel comprising: an outer surface (outer surface, annotated fig. 5) opposite an inner surface (inner surface, annotated fig. 5); a first side surface (first side, annotated fig. 5) connected to the outer surface and connected to the inner surface (see annotated fig. 5); a second side surface (second side, annotated fig. 5), opposite the first side surface, connected to the outer surface and connected to the inner surface (see annotated fig. 5); and a plurality of surface features (surface features, annotated fig. 5) dispersed on Bott explicitly does not disclose: a plurality of surface features dispersed on the outer surface. However, Bott states that the cooling fins- same as elevations or surface features- are used to ensure rapid dissipation of heat (see para [0025]: “[0025] Preferably, the elevations are embodied as fins or cooling fins, which extend at least substantially in the direction of the machine axis. This ensures a rapid dissipation of heat by means of the coolant by way of the cooling channel embodied between two cooling fins.”). Hence, for faster or more efficient cooling, a person with ordinary skills in the art may also disperse surface features on the outer surface as taught by Yang. Yang discloses a similar cooling structure for a rotary electric motor (see for example figs. 5, 7 and 10) comprising a plurality of axial cooling channels 9 wherein protrusions 4 are dispersed on any of the side wall surfaces, see figs. 1A-3D, below. PNG media_image5.png 675 675 media_image5.png Greyscale For rapid heat dissipation, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each cooling channel in such a way that: a plurality of surface features dispersed on the outer surface. Regarding claim 5, Bott as modified by Yang in claim 1 discloses the cooling structure of claim 1, wherein the protrusions are ridges (see figs. 4-8; see also para [0026]: “The elevations may also, however, be embodied as cooling fins which are embodied at an angle between 0° and 180°, preferably between 80° and 100°.”). Regarding claim 6, Bott as modified by Yang in claim 1 discloses the cooling structure of claim 1, wherein the radiator body is formed by additive manufacturing (see abstract: “at least one material is applied in layers by an additive manufacturing method to the surface of the housing”). Regarding claim 7, Bott as modified by Yang in claim 1 discloses the cooling structure of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the radiator body is formed by a lost-wax casting method. However, various casting methods are known to those having ordinary skills in the art. Additionally, since the choice of lost-wax casting method does not make any difference in the end product and, therefore, per MPEP 2113, the “wherein the radiator body is formed by a lost-wax casting method” limitation is not given a patentable weight in this Office action. Regarding claim 8, Bott as modified by Yang in claim 1 discloses the cooling structure of claim 1, further comprising a coolant inlet at the first end and a coolant outlet at the second end (implied due to the fact that the channels are axial; see for example figs. 5, 7 and 10 in Yang). Regarding claim 9, Bott as modified by Yang in claim 1 discloses a rotary electric motor comprising a rotor and a stator in coaxial arrangement and a cooling structure as claimed in claim 1 around the rotor and stator (implied, see para [0005] in Bott: “The object is achieved by a method in accordance with claim 1, i.e. a method for producing a cooling structure on a surface of a housing of a dynamoelectric rotary machine, which is designed as a permanently excited synchronous machine”; see for example figs. 5, 7 and 10 in Yang). Regarding claim 10, Bott as modified by Yang in claim 1 discloses a rotary electric motor as claimed in claim 9, but does not disclose: further comprising a housing containing the coaxially arranged assembly of the rotor and the stator and the cooling structure. However, adding an enclosure to protect the machine from environmental hazards is a simple task that’s within the skills of a person having ordinary skills in the art. For physical protection of the rotary electric machine, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the machine disclosed by Bott in such a way that the machine: further comprising a housing containing the coaxially arranged assembly of the rotor and the stator and the cooling structure. Regarding claim 12, Bott as modified by Yang in claim 1 discloses a rotary electric motor as claimed in claim 9, further comprising a source of coolant provided to the cooling structure to flow through the channels from the first end to the second end (para [0011]: “A fluid is preferably used as coolant. Gases, such as air for example, or also liquids, such as water for example, or a water-glycol mixture may be used.”). Regarding claim 13, Bott as modified by Yang in claim 1 discloses a rotary electric motor as claimed in claim 12, wherein the coolant is air (see para [0011] quoted regarding claim 12). Regarding claim 14, Bott as modified by Yang in claim 1 discloses a rotary electric motor as claimed in claim 9, but does not disclose: wherein the rotary electric motor is a motor in an aircraft. However, this limitation is simply an intended application and does not further narrow the scope of the rotatory electric machine beyond what’s claimed in claim 9. In addition, Bott discloses using the coolant structure for an air-cooled dynamoelectric rotary machine and it’s well-known that aircrafts use dynamoelectric rotatory electric machines. Regarding claim 15, Bott as modified by Yang in claim 1 and modified in claim 9 discloses a rotary electric motor as claimed in claim 9, while implicitly required for the discloses structure, Bott does not disclose the housing further comprising: a plurality of inlets fluidically connected to the first end of the annular radiator body; and an outlet fluidically connected to the second end of the annular radiator body, wherein the plurality of isolated channels fluidically connect the plurality of inlets to the outlet. Referring to figs. 5 and 6, shown below, Yang teaches a plurality of cooling channels 9 having plurality of protrusions 4 dispersed on the inner surfaces of each channel. The inlet 8 provides cooling air connected fluidically to channels 9 at the first end and an outlet 11 fluidically connected to the second end of the annular radiator body, wherein the plurality of isolated channels fluidically connect the plurality of inlets to the outlet (see figs. 5 and 6). PNG media_image6.png 398 891 media_image6.png Greyscale For pushing cooling air into the channels and extracting the heated air from the channel, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that: the housing further comprising: a plurality of inlets fluidically connected to the first end of the annular radiator body; and an outlet fluidically connected to the second end of the annular radiator body, wherein the plurality of isolated channels fluidically connect the plurality of inlets to the outlet. Claim 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bott et al., (US 20210036590 A1) in view of Yang et al., (CN 107623390 A) and further in view of Page et al., (US 20210135516 A1). Regarding claims 3 and 4, Bott as modified by Yang in claim 1 discloses the cooling structure of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose: wherein the protrusions are bubble-shaped or teardrop-shaped protrusions. However, regarding the shapes of the protrusions, Bott discloses: “[0076] The pins 43 may have a circular base area (base area is the area on which the pins and the housing are in contact with one another), an oval base area, an elliptical base area, a square base area, a rectangular base area, a square base area with rounded corners or a rectangular base area with rounded corners. Other shapes are also possible, however.” Page also teaches various shapes for the protrusions for a heat transfer: “[0050] In another embodiment, illustrated in FIG. 5, the heat transfer enhancement features 68 are in the form of pin fins 72. The pin fins 72 may have a circular cross-sectional shape as illustrated. However, the pin fins 72 may have other cross-sectional shape such as square, rectangular, diamond-shaped, oval or teardrop shaped. Again, the particular arrangement of the pin fins 72 can be chosen by the skilled person to provide the necessary cooling requirements.” In the instant application, Applicant has not shown any unexpected improvement for bubble-shaped protrusions over the other shapes. For optimizing the cooling efficiency, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that: the protrusions are bubble-shaped or teardrop-shaped protrusions. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bott et al., (US 20210036590 A1) in view of Yang et al., (CN 107623390 A) and further in view of Ertas et al. (US 20230378827 A1). Regarding claim 11, Bott as modified by Yang in claim 1 discloses a rotary electric motor as claimed in claim 10, wherein the cooling structure further comprises a coolant inlet at the first end and a coolant outlet at the second end (implied due to the axial channel), however, Bott does not disclose: wherein the housing includes a manifold defining the coolant inlet and the coolant outlet. Bott’s disclosure is focused on the design of the cooling structure around the cylindrical surface of the electric motor. For an annular cooling structure, Ertas teaches: “a cooling manifold (160) defining an annular distribution plenum (164) in fluid communication with the plurality of distribution passages (142), wherein the cooling manifold (160) is configured for receiving a cooling fluid (144) and directing the cooling fluid (144) into the distribution plenum (164), through the distribution passage (142) and the discharge passage (150),” (see the abstract). For receiving a cooling fluid and directing the cooling fluid to the plurality of the cooling channels, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the machine disclosed by Bott in such a way that the machine: the housing includes a manifold defining the coolant inlet and the coolant outlet. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are listed on PTO-892. These references disclose cooling structures comprising a plurality of isolated axial channels having cooling fins with various shapes. 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 MASOUD VAZIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-2340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm 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, the examiner’s supervisor, SEYE IWARERE can be reached on (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. /MASOUD VAZIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 2834 /OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 07, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 20, 2026
Interview Requested
Mar 10, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 10, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 16, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 08, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12614940
COOLING OF HIGH-POWER PERMANENT MAGNET MACHINE ROTOR
2y 11m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12614946
COIL FOR STATOR OF ELECTRIC MOTOR, STATOR AND MANUFACTURING PROCESS
2y 1m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12603541
ELECTRIC DRIVE UNIT THAT INCLUDES A FLUID FLOW PATH
2y 2m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603547
AXIAL ALIGNMENT SYSTEM FOR A ROTOR OF A ROTARY ELECTRIC MACHINE, AND CORRESPONDING ROTARY ELECTRIC MACHINES
2y 4m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597824
ROTATING ELECTRIC MACHINE CASE AND ROTATING ELECTRIC MACHINE
2y 4m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+11.2%)
2y 5m (~3m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 138 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month