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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11 April 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “DS” (thrust and/or end washer, claim 4). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 5-14 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.
In claim 4, “the fluid distribution device (FVE)” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 5, “in relation to the length of the shaft cavity in the axial direction of the rotor” is indefinite. The claimed relation between the shaft cavity length and sprayed cooling medium is unclear.
In claim 6, “a fluid distribution device…arranged directly or indirectly on an outer side of the hollow rotor shaft…” is indefinite. It is not clear what a structure is encompassed by a “direct” or “indirect” arrangement of the device on an outer side of the shaft, or how these distinguish from one another.
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 1-3, 5-8 & 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael (US Pat.Pub.2022/0060072).
Regarding claim 1, Michael teaches an electrical machine (electric motor) for a motor vehicle (¶[0006]), comprising:
a rotor R mounted rotatably about a rotational axis 11, the rotor further comprising:
a hollow rotor shaft 1 having an inner lateral surface 12a/12b, and an axial end with a shaft opening (not numbered; Fig.1); and
a shaft cavity (not numbered) which is enclosed by the hollow rotor shaft;
a stationary (fluid) lance 3, which is guided through the shaft opening into the shaft cavity (¶[0071]; Fig.1a), the stationary lance 3 further comprising:
a fluid outlet opening 32 (Fig.1a);
a cooling medium that is guided through the stationary lance and sprayed onto the inner lateral surface 12a/12b of the hollow rotor shaft 1 via the fluid outlet opening 32 (cooling fluid flow denoted by arrows; ¶[0078]; Figs.1&1a);
an edge-sealed first outlet opening 13a/13b is formed in a wall of the hollow rotor shaft, via which edge-sealed first outlet opening the cooling medium may escape from the shaft cavity (Fig.1).
PNG
media_image1.png
551
495
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the function “[w]herein at a rotation speed n of the rotor [1] of n ≥ 4,000 rpm over at least 15 seconds, an average film thickness dF of the cooling medium in the radial direction of the rotor is ≤ 3 mm”, Michael inherently teaches rotation speed n of n ≥ 4,000 rpm over at least 15 seconds since these are typical for vehicle electric motors. 1 Michael also inherently teaches an average film thickness of the cooling medium, that the film is as thin-walled and uniform as possible due to rotation-related circumferential forces (¶[0018]; ¶[0020]; ¶[0088]; ¶[0091]) and that the thickness can be adjusted by the height of the shaft shoulders 14 above the inner wall 12 (¶[0085]; Fig.4). Michael differs only in that the average film thickness dF of the cooling medium in the radial direction of the rotor is not “≤ 3 mm”, per se.
But, this range would have been obvious in view of Michael since it has been held that discovery of optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In this case Michael teaches the claimed structure and functions---in particular the claimed rotational speeds greater than 4,000 rpm---and further teaches the film is as thin-walled and uniform as possible (¶[0018]-¶[0019]; ¶[0088]) and that it can be adjusted to delay the flow time of the cooling fluid so that the cooling fluid is prevented from flowing off too quickly and the heat absorption capacity of the cooling fluid can be better utilized (¶[0015]; ¶[0085]). This all suggests that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill would choose an average film thickness dF within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 2, the cooling medium is an oil (¶[0011]).
Regarding claim 3, a laminated rotor core 2 is arranged on the hollow rotor shaft 1; wherein the laminated core is seated non-rotatably over its entire surface on an outer side of the hollow rotor shaft (¶[0067]; Fig.1).
Regarding claim 5, the cooling medium is sprayed onto the inner lateral surface 12a/12b centrally via the fluid outlet opening 32, “in relation to the length of the shaft cavity in the axial direction of the rotor” [sic] (Fig.1a).
Regarding claim 6, a fluid distribution device (inclusive of outflow openings 13a/13b) is “arranged directly or indirectly” [sic] on an outer side of the hollow rotor shaft 1; wherein via the fluid distribution device at least a portion of the cooling medium discharged from the shaft cavity via the first outlet opening 13a, 13b is received and sprayed onto a winding head (not numbered) of a stator S surrounding the rotor (note arrows; Fig.1).
Regarding claim 7, the fluid distribution device is J-shaped…in cross-section (i.e., inclusive of outflow openings 13a/13b and shaft shoulders 14a/14b; Fig.4).
Regarding claim 8, Michael’s fluid distribution device further comprises an “open reservoir” [sic] (not numbered, region between shaft and end ring) having a fluid inlet opening (i.e., outflow opening 13a) and a second outlet opening (not numbered, where fluid exits the open reservoir and flows around end rings towards stator S; Fig.1).
Regarding claim 15, the rotor R further comprises an internal rotor R surrounded by a stator S via an air gap (not numbered), the stator further comprising: a multilayer stator winding (not numbered) designed with multiple layers in the radial direction of the stator (i.e., multiple conductors forming stator windings); and a winding head (not numbered) formed on an end face of the stator S aligned in the axial direction; wherein a position of the multilayer stator winding in the region of the winding head between the end face of the stator and a distal end of the winding head is deflected in the radial direction and/or curved in relation to the longitudinal axis of the stator (i.e., curved shape of winding heads; Fig.1).
Regarding claim 16, Michael does not disclose the winding head is formed with potting.
Regarding claim 17, Michael teaches a motor vehicle comprising an electrical machine (¶[0006]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael as applied to claim 3, further in view of Hishinuma (JP 2013-132151).
Michael teaches a thrust washer and/or end washer (not numbered; at ends of rotor core, Fig.1) for pre-tensioning the laminated core 2 arranged on the rotor, but does not teach a fluid distribution device is “formed in one piece” therewith.
But, Hishinuma teaches a motor including a hollow rotor shaft for passing coolant and rotor 16 comprising a laminated core 40 with a fluid distribution device comprising end washers (end plates) 20 comprising a radial, plate side coolant passage 46 and formed in one piece therewith which scatters oil toward the stator coil end 26 and ensures cooling performance (abstract; Figs.1-2).
PNG
media_image2.png
368
465
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
213
245
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to form Michael’s thrust and/or end washer in one piece with the fluid distribution device since Hishinuma teaches this would have scattered oil toward the stator coil end and ensures cooling performance.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael as applied to claim 6, further in view of Burkhardt et al. (DE 102015223073).
Michael does not teach the fluid distribution device further comprises a plurality of second outlet openings which are arranged so as to be spaced apart from one another in the circumferential direction of the rotor; wherein second outlet openings have a different outlet angle from one another.
But, Burkhardt teaches an electric motor with a hollow rotor shaft 36 through which a cooling fluid 25 flows and a plurality of first and second outlet openings 42 which are arranged so as to be spaced apart from one another in the circumferential direction of the rotor; wherein second outlet openings have a different outlet angle 43 from one another, at a pitch angle in a range between 15º and 120º , to direct cooling fluid to the winding head 24 of the stator and end face 34 of the rotor and increase the cooling effect (Fig.2; ¶[0018]; ¶[0029]).
PNG
media_image4.png
637
538
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Michael with a plurality of second outlet openings which are arranged so as to be spaced apart from one another in the circumferential direction of the rotor; wherein second outlet openings have a different outlet angle from one another, since Burkhardt teaches they would have increased the cooling effect.
Claims 8 & 13 are s rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael as applied to claim 6, further in view of Yoshinori et al. (US 10,734,866).
Regarding claim 8, Michael’s fluid distribution device does not further comprise an “open reservoir” [sic] having a fluid inlet opening and a second outlet opening corresponding to the configuration shown in the application, Fig.1.
But, Yoshinori teaches a rotating electric machine including a rotor 6 with a fluid distribution device comprising a bowl-shaped end plate 10 forming an “open reservoir” for liquid refrigerant and having a fluid inlet opening (holes in end plate 9 forming passage exits D) and a second outlet opening 10a (Fig.6). With this configuration, even in the case with a stator having a long coil end length as in distributed winding, the liquid refrigerant can be efficiently scattered to the coil end of the stator coil 11c, so that the cooling efficiency can be enhanced (c.5:30-35).
PNG
media_image5.png
491
439
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to further modify Michael and provide an “open reservoir” [sic] having a fluid inlet opening and a second outlet opening since Yoshinori teaches this would have efficiently scattered liquid refrigerant to the coil end of the stator coil so that the cooling efficiency can be enhanced.
Regarding claim 13, in Yoshinori the second outlet opening 10a is aligned at an angle of between 0° and 30° in relation to a perpendicular of the rotational axis (Fig.6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior art of record does not appear to further teach the fluid distribution device (FVE) comprises “a long web (LS) which is aligned perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the rotor (RO); a short web (KS) connected to the long web, the short web aligned parallel to the longitudinal axis of the rotor (RO), the second outlet opening (ZAO) being integrally formed as part of the short web; and a projection (VS) formed at the end of the short web (KS), and points in the direction of the longitudinal axis of the rotor (RO)” (claim 9).
These determinations are based on keyword and citation searches performed in a limited number of subclasses. Artificial intelligence search tools were employed. Nomenclature in the art is inconsistent. Keyword searches in the foreign art was limited to the text of the abstract. For these reasons, the scope of the search was necessarily truncated and relevant art classified outside the subclasses searched and/or using different terminology or keywords may not have been reviewed. See the Search Notes for details. In particular, in Yoshinori there is no projection formed at the end of the short web 10 that points in the direction of the longitudinal axis of the rotor. Latulipe et al. (WO 2018/098567) teaches a projection formed at the end of the short web that points in the direction of the longitudinal axis of the rotor (Fig.10), to thereby create a U-shaped channel 110 designed to be filled with cooled cooling fluid 112 when the electric machine 20 is in operation, i.e. when the rotor 22 and thus the end plates 106 and 108 rotate (see arrow 114) about axis 116….When the channel 110 is filled, it overflows outwardly and cooled cooling fluid is substantially evenly distributed onto the inner sides of the coil heads…” (¶[0046]). But, Yoshinori teaches openings 10a in the wall surface for scattering refrigerant (c.5:22-35). There does not appear to be motivation to modify Yoshinori with Latulipe’s projection since Yoshinori’s openings 10a are designed to scatter refrigerant, not allow a U-shaped channel to be filled such that it overflows.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BURTON S MULLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2029. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5. 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 C 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.
/BURTON S MULLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
1 See Here’s why electric cars have plenty of grunt, oomph and torque April 15, 2019.