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 .
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 (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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0159668 to Oda et al. (hereinafter Oda).
Regarding claim 1, Oda teaches a rotary electric machine housing (FIG. 1, 20) configured to accommodate a rotary electric machine (FIG. 1, 10), the rotary electric machine housing comprising:
a body portion having an accommodation space in which the rotary electric machine is accommodated (FIG. 1, interior of 20);
a gas flow path provided in the body portion and through which a gas to be supplied to the rotary electric machine flows (FIG. 1, S1);
an oil flow path provided in the body portion and through which an oil to be supplied to the rotary electric machine flows (FIG. 1, 37, S5);
and a refrigerant flow path provided in the body portion and through which a refrigerant flows inside (FIG. 1, X1, X2), wherein the refrigerant flow path includes:
a rotary electric machine heat exchange part (FIG. 1, S3 in which the refrigerant exchanges heat with the rotary electric machine (Paragraph [0043]);
a gas heat exchange part (FIG. 1, 4) in which the refrigerant exchanges heat with the gas flowing through the gas flow path; and
an oil heat exchange part (FIG. 1; S4, S5, portion touching S3) in which the refrigerant exchanges heat with the oil flowing through the oil flow path, and
the rotary electric machine heat exchange part (FIG. 1, S3), the gas heat exchange part (FIG. 1, 4), and the oil heat exchange part (FIG. 1, S4, S5) are provided in series along a flow direction of the refrigerant (FIG. 1; X1, X2, X4).
Regarding claim 5, Oda teaches the rotary electric machine housing according to claim 1, wherein the rotary electric machine heat exchange part has a cylindrical shape (FIG. 2, 10), and the gas heat exchange part (FIG. 1, 4) and the oil heat exchange part (FIG. 1, S5) are disposed radially outward of the rotary electric machine heat exchange part (FIG. 1, S3).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda.
Oda teaches the rotary electric machine housing according to claim 1.
Oda does not teach the rotary electric machine heat exchange part being provided downstream of the gas heat exchange part and the oil heat exchange part in the flow direction of the refrigerant.
However, 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 flow order of Oda as it would have been obvious to try as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, in this case the finite number of solutions being the relative flow placement of the heat exchange parts as a matter of design choice in an attempt to prioritize the heat exchange of the components with respect to the refrigerant.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0256343 to Sakota et al. (hereinafter Sakota).
Regarding claim 3, Oda teaches the rotary electric machine housing according to claim 1.
Oda does not teach the gas flow path and the gas heat exchange part of the refrigerant flow path extending in an axial direction of the rotary electric machine, and a flow direction of the refrigerant flowing through the gas heat exchange part being opposite to a flow direction of the gas flowing through the gas flow path.
However, Sakota teaches a rotary electric machine housing with a gas flow path (FIG. 2, 11) and a gas heat exchange part (FIG. 2, 9) of a refrigerant flow path (FIG. 2, 10) extending in an axial direction of the rotary electric machine (FIG. 2, 1).
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 rotary electric machine housing of Oda with the flow paths of Sakota to potentially reduce the radial size of the rotary electric machine housing.
Oda in view of Sakota does not teach a flow direction of the refrigerant flowing through the gas heat exchange part being opposite to a flow direction of the gas flowing through the gas flow path.
However, 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 flow directions of Oda in view of Sakota as it would have been obvious to try as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, in this case the finite number of solutions being the flow directions of the refrigerant and the gas as a matter of design choice to attempt to maximize the heat exchange rate between the two flows.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda in view of WIPO Publication No. 2022/107429 to Amagai et al. (hereinafter Amagai).
Regarding claim 4, Oda teaches the rotary electric machine housing according to claim 1.
Oda does not teach the oil flow path and the oil heat exchange part of the refrigerant flow path extending in an axial direction of the rotary electric machine, and a flow direction of the refrigerant flowing through the oil heat exchange part being opposite to a flow direction of the oil flowing through the oil flow path.
However, Amagai teaches an oil flow path (FIG. 2, 77) and an oil heat exchange part of a refrigerant flow path (FIG. 2, 10) extending in an axial direction of the rotary electric machine (FIG. 2, 77; Paragraph [0032]).
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 rotary electric machine housing of Oda with the flow paths of Amagai to potentially reduce the radial size of the rotary electric machine housing.
Oda in view of Amagai does not teach a flow direction of the refrigerant flowing through the oil heat exchange part being opposite to a flow direction of the oil flowing through the oil flow path.
However, 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 flow directions of Oda in view of Amagai as it would have been obvious to try as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, in this case the finite number of solutions being the flow directions of the refrigerant and the oil as a matter of design choice to attempt to maximize the heat exchange rate between the two flows.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0123348 to Hafner et al. (hereinafter Hafner).
Regarding claim 7, Oda teaches the rotary electric machine housing according to claim 1.
Oda does not teach a manufacturing method of manufacturing the rotary electric machine housing by additive manufacture, the manufacturing method comprising: integrally forming the body portion, the gas flow path, the oil flow path, and the refrigerant flow path.
However, Hafner teaches a manufacturing method of a cooling flow path created by additive manufacture (Paragraph [0065]).
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 rotary electric machine housing of Oda with the additive manufacturing method of Hafner as it enables the design and production of more customizable and intricate features of the cooling circuit (Paragraph [0065]).
Oda in view of Hafner does not teach integrally forming the body portion, the gas flow path, the oil flow path, and the refrigerant flow path.
However, 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 method of Oda in view of Hafner by making the body portion integral to the flow paths as a matter of design choice to create a more mechanically robust single piece structure (see In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The claim limitation of “The terminal arrangement portion provided with an electric terminal for transmitting and receiving electric power between the rotary electric machine and an external device” is disclosed by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0325664 to Yazaki et al. (hereinafter Yazaki; cited by Applicant on 3/27/2024). However, the claim limitation regarding placing the terminal arrangement portion, the gas flow arrangement portion, and the oil flow path arrangement portion at intervals of about 120 degrees in a circumferential direction of the body portion is not disclosed by any prior art of record.
Conclusion
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