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 .
Response to Amendment
Regarding objections to the drawings:
The drawings were objected to due to multiple informalities. The Applicant provided replacement drawings received 1/27/2026 and amended the specification with respect to the drawings to correct the informalities, therefore the objections were withdrawn.
Regarding objections to the specification:
The specification was objected to due to an informality. The Applicant amended the specification to correct the informality, therefore the objection was withdrawn.
Regarding rejections of the claims under §103:
Claims 1-4, 10, and 12 were rejected as being obvious over Iyer in view of Sercombe. Claims 5-6 were rejected as being obvious over Iyer in view of Sercombe and Reinlein. Claims 7-9 were rejected as being obvious over Iyer in view of Sercombe and Brandl. Claim 11 was rejected as being obvious over Iyer in view of Sercombe and Joshi. Claims 13 and 16-17 were rejected as being obvious over Iyer in view of Sercombe and Douglas. Claims 14-15 were rejected as being obvious over Iyer in view of Sercombe, Douglas, and Huard. Claim 18 was rejected as being obvious over Iyer in view of Sercombe, Douglas, and Hasegawa. Claims 19-20 were rejected as being obvious over Iyer in view of Sercombe, Douglas, and Rippel. The Applicant amended claims 1, 7, and 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendment to the claims, see page 9, filed 1/27/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 13 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0393538 to Engelhardt et al.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 1/27/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 7 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0016704 to Stewart, JR. et al.
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.
Claims 1-4, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0166275 to Iyer et al. (hereinafter Iyer) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0169136 to Sercombe et al. (hereinafter Sercombe) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0393538 to Engelhardt et al. (hereinafter Engelhardt).
Regarding claim 1, Iyer teaches a cooling apparatus (FIG. 6, 120) for an electric machine (FIG. 7, 10) defining an axial direction, the cooling apparatus comprising:
a body (FIG. 6, 120) extending from a first end (FIG. 6, 122, left part) to a second end (FIG. 6, 122, right part), the body defining an outer surface (Fig. 7, portion of 130 touching 20), an inner surface (FIG. 7, portion of 130 touching 34), and a cavity interior of the inner surface (FIG. 7, 32), the cavity configured to receive and enclose electric machine windings (FIG. 7, 34) of the electric machine; and
a plurality of channels (FIG. 7; 140, 142, 144) defined in the body, the plurality of channels extending from the first end to the second end, each of the plurality of channels disposed between the inner surface and the outer surface (FIG. 7).
Iyer does not teach a manifold defining a fluid port, wherein the manifold is arranged to engage the body at one of the first end or the second end,
wherein, when the manifold engages the one of the first end or the second end, the manifold and the inner surface of the body form a fluidtight chamber enclosing the plurality of channels from the cavity, the fluidtight chamber extending completely around the cavity, wherein the fluidtight chamber is in fluid communication with the fluid port.
However, Sercombe teaches a manifold defining a fluid port (FIG. 6, 602; Paragraph [0066]), wherein the manifold is arranged to engage the body at one of the first end or the second end (FIG. 6, 302C),
wherein, when the manifold engages the one of the first end or the second end, the manifold and the inner surface of the body form a fluidtight chamber enclosing the plurality of channels from the cavity, wherein the fluidtight chamber is in fluid communication with the fluid port (Paragraph [0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling apparatus of Iyer with the manifold of Sercombe to provide a more efficient coolant provision for the cooling apparatus.
Iyer in view of Sercombe does not teach the fluidtight chamber extending completely around the cavity.
However, Engelhardt teaches a fluidtight chamber (FIG. 1(a), 5) extending completely around a cavity of electric machine windings (FIG. 1, 4; Paragraph [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling apparatus of Iyer in view of Sercombe with the fluidtight chamber of Engelhardt to better direct the cooling fluid and prevent it from egressing into an unintended region of the electric machine (Paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claim 2, Iyer in view of Sercombe and Engelhardt teaches the cooling apparatus of claim 1, wherein Sercombe further teaches a second manifold defining a fluid port (FIG. 6, 604), wherein the second manifold is arranged to engage the body at the other of the first end or the second end to form the fluidtight chamber with the manifold and the inner surface of the body (Paragraph [0066]).
Regarding claim 3, Iyer in view of Sercombe and Engelhardt teaches the cooling apparatus of claim 1, wherein Iyer further teaches the body further including a plurality of dividers (FIG. 7; 130, 132) extending from the outer surface to the inner surface and extending from the first end to the second end, wherein the plurality of channels are defined between adjacent ones of the plurality of dividers (FIG. 7; 140, 142, 144).
Regarding claim 4, Iyer in view of Sercombe and Engelhardt teaches the cooling apparatus of claim 3, wherein Iyer further teaches the plurality of dividers each extending along a straight line along the axial direction form the firs tend to the second end (FIG. 7; 130, 132).
Regarding claim 10, Iyer in view of Sercombe and Engelhardt teaches the cooling apparatus of claim 1, wherein Sercombe further teaches a coolant supply (FIG. 6, 606) in fluid communication with the fluid port of the manifold.
Regarding claim 12, Iyer in view of Sercombe and Engelhardt teaches the cooling apparatus of claim 1, wherein Iyer further teaches the inner surface including a first side (FIG. 7, 130, left side) and a second side opposing the first side (FIG. 7, 130, right side), wherein the body further comprises a platform (FIG. 7, 132) extending from the first side to the second side, and wherein the plurality of channels includes one or more channels defined in the platform (FIG. 7, 144).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer in view of Sercombe and Engelhardt and in further view of German Patent No. 10 2019 106 801 to Reinlein et al. (hereinafter Reinlein).
Regarding claim 5, Iyer in view of Sercombe and Engelhardt teaches the cooling apparatus of claim 3.
Iyer in view of Sercombe and Engelhardt does not teach the plurality of dividers each extending along a serpentine line from the first end to the second end.
However, Reinlein teaches cooling channels having dividers extending along a serpentine line from the first end to the second end (FIG. 5, 52B; Paragraph [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling apparatus of Iyer in view of Sercombe and Engelhardt with the serpentine dividers of Reinlein to increase the turbulence of the coolant and increase the cooling capability of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 6, Iyer in view of Sercombe and Engelhardt teaches the cooling apparatus of claim 3.
Iyer in view of Sercombe and Engelhardt does not teach the plurality of dividers each extending along a helical line from the first end to the second end.
However, Reinlein teaches cooling channels having dividers extending along a helical line from the first end to the second end (FIG. 5, 52A; Paragraph [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling apparatus of Iyer in view of Sercombe and Engelhardt with the helical dividers of Reinlein to increase the turbulence of the coolant and increase the cooling capability of the apparatus.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer in view of Sercombe and Engelhardt and in further view of WIPO Publication No. 2019/228930 to Brandl and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0016704 to Stewart, Jr. et al. (hereinafter Stewart).
Regarding claim 7, Iyer in view of Sercombe and Engelhardt teaches the cooling apparatus of claim 1.
Iyer in view of Sercombe and Engelhardt does not teach the body including a plurality of unit cells, each unit cell defining a microchannel, wherein the plurality of channels are defined by the respective microchannels of the plurality of unit cells, wherein at least one of the plurality of unit cells includes a central post.
However, Brandl teaches a cooling channel body including a plurality of unit cells (FIG. 4, 1), each unit cell defining a microchannel (FIG. 4, 9), wherein the plurality of channels are defined by the respective microchannels of the plurality of unit cells.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling apparatus of Iyer in view of Sercombe and Engelhardt with the unit cells of Brandl as its modular design allows for simpler retrofitting for addition into new electric machines.
Iyer in view of Sercombe, Engelhardt, and Brandl does not teach at least one of the plurality of unit cells including a central post.
However, Stewart teaches a fluid passage comprising unit cells (FIG. 2A, 200) including a central post (FIG. 2G, 256).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling apparatus of Iyer in view of Sercombe, Engelhardt, and Brandl with the post of Stewart to further control the direction of the cooling fluid (Paragraph [0043]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 8, Iyer in view of Sercombe, Engelhardt, Brandl, and Stewart teaches the cooling apparatus of claim 7, wherein Brandl further teaches each unit cell defining a plurality of surfaces (FIG. 4, 10), the microchannel of each unit cell extending between at least two of the plurality of surfaces (Paragraph [0058]), and the microchannel is in fluid communication with at least one microchannel of at least one adjacent one of the plurality of unit cells (Paragraph [0058]).
Regarding claim 9, Iyer in view of Sercombe, Engelhardt, Brandl, and Stewart teaches the cooling apparatus of claim 7, wherein Brandl further teaches at least one of the microchannels is a junction (FIG. 3; 20, 21, 22), the junction including a first inlet (FIG. 3, 31), a second inlet (FIG. 3, 32) and an outlet (FIG. 3, 30), wherein the junction is arranged to combine a fluid flowing through the first inlet with a fluid flowing through the second inlet to a combined flow through the outlet (Paragraph [0058]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer in view of Sercombe and Engelhardt and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0140700 to Joshi et al. (hereinafter Joshi).
Regarding claim 11, Iyer in view of Sercombe and Engelhardt teaches the cooling apparatus of claim 1.
Iyer in view of Sercombe and Engelhardt does not teach the body including an outer sleeve defining the outer surface and an inner sleeve defining the inner surface and the cavity, and wherein the plurality of channels are defined between the outer sleeve and the inner sleeve.
However, Joshi teaches a body including an outer sleeve defining the outer surface and an inner sleeve defining the inner surface and the cavity (FIG. 2A, 210), and wherein the plurality of channels are defined between the outer sleeve and the inner sleeve (FIG. 2B, 220).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling apparatus of Iyer in view of Sercombe and Engelhardt with the sleeve of Joshi to produce a singular more structurally cohesive body for the cooling apparatus.
Claims 13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer in view of Sercombe and Engelhardt and in further view of United Kingdom Patent No. 2574826 to Douglas (provided by Applicant on 3/12/2024).
Regarding claim 13, Iyer teaches an electric machine (FIG. 7, 10) defining an axial direction, the electric machine comprising:
a stator assembly (FIG. 1A, 20) comprising a stator core (FIG. 1A, 22) defining a plurality of stator slots (FIG. 7, 32) in the axial direction;
a rotor assembly (FIG. 1A, 30) comprising a rotor core defining a plurality of rotor slots (FIG. 5, slot containing magnet) in the axial direction, the rotor assembly rotatable within the stator assembly (FIG. 1A; 20, 30); and
a plurality of cooling apparatuses (FIG. 6, 120), each one of the plurality of cooling apparatuses disposed in one of the plurality of stator slots, each of the plurality of cooling apparatuses comprising:
a body (FIG. 6, 120) extending from a first end to a second end, the body defining an outer surface (FIG. 7, portion of 130 touching 20), an inner surface (FIG. 7, portion of 130 touching 34), and a cavity (FIG. 7, 32, interior of the inner surface), the cavity configured to receive and enclose electric machine windings (FIG. 7, 34) of the electric machine ; and
a plurality of channels (FIG. 7; 140, 142, 144), the plurality of channels extending form the first end to the second end, each of the plurality of channels disposed between the inner surface and the outer surface (FIG. 7).
Iyer does not teach the electric machine being for a gas turbine engine and
an inlet manifold attached to the body at the first end, and
an outlet manifold attached to the body at the second end,
wherein the inlet manifold, the outlet manifold, the body, and the inner surface of the body form a fluidtight chamber enclosing the plurality of channels from the cavity, the fluidtight chamber extending completely around the cavity.
However, Sercombe teaches an inlet manifold (FIG. 6, 602) attached to the body at the first end, and
an outlet manifold (FIG. 6, 604) attached to the body at the second end,
wherein the inlet manifold, the outlet manifold, the body, and the inner surface of the body form a fluidtight chamber enclosing the plurality of channels from the cavity (Paragraph [0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric machine of Iyer with the manifold of Sercombe to provide a more efficient coolant provision for the electric machine.
Iyer in view of Sercombe does not teach the electric machine being for a gas turbine engine and the fluidtight chamber extending completely around the cavity.
However, Engelhardt teaches a fluidtight chamber (FIG. 1(a), 5) extending completely around a cavity of electric machine windings (FIG. 1, 4; Paragraph [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric machine of Iyer in view of Sercombe with the fluidtight chamber of Engelhardt to better direct the cooling fluid and prevent it from egressing into an unintended region of the electric machine (Paragraph [0037]).
Iyer in view of Sercombe and Engelhardt does not teach the electric machine being for a gas turbine engine.
However, Douglas teaches a cooled electric machine being for a gas turbine engine (Page 3 lines 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric machine of Iyer in view of Sercombe and Engelhardt by incorporating it into the gas turbine engine of Douglas for the gas turbine engine of Douglas to benefit from the features of the electric machine of Iyer in view of Sercombe and Engelhardt.
Regarding claim 16, Iyer in view of Sercombe, Engelhardt, and Douglas teaches the electric machine of claim 13, wherein Sercombe further teaches a radial inlet manifold (FIG. 8, 702) fluidly connected to the inlet manifold of at least one of the plurality of cooling apparatuses and a radial outlet manifold (FIG. 8, 704) connected to the outlet manifold of at least one of the plurality of cooling apparatuses.
Regarding claim 17, Iyer in view of Sercombe, Engelhardt, and Douglas teaches the electric machine of claim 13, wherein Iyer further teaches a plurality of windings (FIG. 7, 34) disposed in each cavity of the plurality of cooling apparatuses.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer in view of Sercombe, Engelhardt, and Douglas and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0309695 to Huard (cited by Applicant on 3/12/2024).
Regarding claim 14, Iyer in view of Sercombe, Engelhardt, and Douglas teaches the electric machine of claim 13.
Iyer in view of Sercombe, Engelhardt, and Douglas does not teach the outlet manifold of a first one of the plurality of cooling apparatuses being in fluid communication with the inlet manifold of an adjacent second one of the plurality of cooling apparatuses.
However, Huard teaches a cooling channel of a cooling apparatuses with the outlet of one connected to the inlet of an adjacent one (FIG. 5, 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric machine of Iyer in view of Sercombe, Engelhardt, and Douglas with the connected cooling apparatuses of Huard as it reduces an EMF present in the channels due to the configuration (paragraph [0027]-[0028]).
Regarding claim 15, Iyer in view of Sercombe, Engelhardt, Douglas, and Huard teaches the electric machine of claim 14, wherein Huard further teaches the outlet manifold of each of the plurality of cooling apparatuses being in fluid communication with the respective inlet manifolds of each adjacent one of the plurality of cooling apparatuses to form a serial flowpath (Paragraph [0027]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer in view of Sercombe, Engelhardt, and Douglas and in further view of Japanese Patent No. 2019-170110 to Hasegawa.
Regarding claim 18, Iyer in view of Sercombe, Engelhardt, and Douglas teaches the electric machine of claim 13.
Iyer in view of Sercombe, Engelhardt, and Douglas does not teach at least one of the plurality of cooling apparatuses further comprising an inlet clip attached to the inlet manifold and an outlet clip attached to the outlet manifold, wherein the inlet clip engages one of the stator core or the rotor core, and the outlet clip engages one of the stator core or the rotor core.
However, Hasegawa teaches a manifold having at both an inlet end and an outlet end a clip (FIG. 6, 33b) engaging the stator core.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric machine of Iyer in view of Sercombe, Engelhardt, and Douglas with the clip of Hasegawa to further ensure the positioning of the cooling apparatus.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer in view of Sercombe, Engelhardt, and Douglas and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0280525 to Rippel et al. (hereinafter Rippel).
Regarding claim 19, Iyer in view of Sercombe, Engelhardt, and Douglas teaches the electric machine of claim 13.
Iyer in view of Sercombe, Engelhardt, and Douglas does not teach a rotary fluid coupling arranged to provide a coolant to one of the plurality of cooling apparatuses disposed in one of the plurality of rotor slots.
However, Rippel teaches a rotary fluid coupling (FIG. 1a, 180) arranged to provide a coolant to one of the plurality of cooling apparatuses disposed in one of the plurality of rotor slots (Paragraph [0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric machine of Iyer in view of Sercombe, Engelhardt, and Douglas with the rotary fluid coupling of Rippel to more selectively control coolant flow in the cooling apparatus.
Regarding claim 20, Iyer in view of Sercombe, Engelhardt, Douglas, and Rippel teaches the electric machine of claim 19, wherein Rippel further teaches the rotary fluid coupling being arranged to rotate into engagement with a coolant supply (FIG. 1a, 153) to receive the coolant and arranged to rotate out of engagement with the coolant supply to cease receiving the coolant (Paragraph [0074]).
Conclusion
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 JOSHUA KIEL MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 7:00pm ET.
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.
/JOSHUA KIEL M RODRIGUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834