DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1, 3-5 and 7-15 of U.S. Application 18/661912 filed on April 22, 2026 are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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 Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed April 22, 2026, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The applicant’s argument that Ehrenberger should be modified to add holes in the divider plate because the Ehrenberger’s divider plate is used to separate and seal two different cooling fluids was found persuasive. In the current action Ehrenberger in not used as grounds of rejection. Claim 1 is currently rejected by Juris (US 20170237306) in view of Fukada (US 20200370834).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 3, 4 and 15 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 3 recites the limitation "the perforations" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner will interpret “the perforations” as -- the holes --.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the perforations" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner will interpret “the perforations” as -- the holes --.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the perforations" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner will interpret “the perforations” as -- the holes --.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juris (US 20170237306) in view of Fukada (US 20200370834).
Regarding claim 1, Juris teaches (see figs. 1-5 below) a cooling structure for a rotary electric machine (1) (title, Abstract, ¶ 35),
the structure comprising: an annular radiator body (20) defining an axis X (4) between a first end and a second end (Abstract, ¶ 35; ¶ 37; ¶ 38),
the annular radiator body (20) including: a radially inner wall (see annotated fig. 2 below); a radially outer wall (23); and a plurality of channels (25) defined between the radially inner wall (see annotated fig. 2 below) and the radially outer wall (23), each extending from the first end to the second end (¶ 41 to ¶ 44),
each channel (25) comprising: a divider wall (16) extending along the axis between the first end and the second end, separating the respective channel (25) into two sub-channels, the divider wall (16) having a corrugated shape defining alternating peaks and valleys along the axial length of the divider wall (16) (¶ 43; ¶ 44).
PNG
media_image1.png
392
517
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
460
583
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
484
560
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
492
549
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
322
488
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Juris does not explicitly teach the divider wall is provided with holes therethrough.
However, Fukada teaches (see fig. 9 below) the divider wall (16) is provided with holes (42) therethrough (¶ 52) in order to increase turbulence and thereby improve overall heat transfer performance (Fukada, ¶ 52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device Juris and provide the divider wall is provided with holes therethrough as taught by Fukada in order to increase turbulence and thereby improve overall heat transfer performance (Fukada, ¶ 52).
PNG
media_image6.png
418
694
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3/1, Juris in view of Fukada teaches the device of claim 1, Juris does not explicitly teach the perforations have a circular cross-section.
However, Fukada further teaches (see fig. 9 above) the perforations (42) have a circular cross-section (fig. 9; ¶ 52) in order to increase turbulence and thereby improve overall heat transfer performance (Fukada, ¶ 52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device Juris and provide the perforations have a circular cross-section as further taught by Fukada in order to increase turbulence and thereby improve overall heat transfer performance (Fukada, ¶ 52).
Regarding claim 4/1, Juris in view of Fukada teaches the device of claim 1, Juris does not explicitly teach the perforations have a non-circular cross-section.
However, Fukada further teaches (see fig. 9 above) the perforations (42) have a non-circular cross-section (¶ 52) in order to increase turbulence and thereby improve overall heat transfer performance (Fukada, ¶ 52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device Juris and provide the perforations have a non-circular cross-section as further taught by Fukada in order to increase turbulence and thereby improve overall heat transfer performance (Fukada, ¶ 52).
Regarding claim 5/1, Juris in view of Fukada teaches the device of claim 1, Juris further teaches (see figs. 1-5 above) the radiator body (20) is formed by additive manufacturing (product by process limitation, not given patentable weight, see below) (¶ 41 to ¶ 44).
The Examiner points out the limitation of “formed by additive manufacturing” is considered as a product-by-process limitation. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777F, 2d 659, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 7/1, Juris in view of Fukada teaches the device of claim 1, Juris further teaches (see figs. 1-5 above) the divider wall (16) is formed by additive manufacturing (product by process limitation, not given patentable weight, see below) (¶ 43; ¶ 44).
The Examiner points out the limitation of “formed by additive manufacturing” is considered as a product-by-process limitation. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777F, 2d 659, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 8/1, Juris in view of Fukada teaches the device of claim 1, Juris further teaches (see figs. 1-5 above) a coolant inlet (17) at the first end and a coolant outlet (18) at the second end (¶ 36; ¶ 37).
Regarding claim 9/1, Juris in view of Fukada teaches the device of claim 1, Juris further teaches (see figs. 1-5 above) a rotary electric motor comprising: a rotor (3); a stator (2) in coaxial arrangement with the rotor (3); and a cooling structure as claimed in claim 1 arranged around the rotor (3) and the stator (2) to form a coaxial assembly (Abstract; ¶ 35 to ¶ 37).
Regarding claim 10/9/1, Juris in view of Fukada teaches the device of claim 9, Juris further teaches (see figs. 1-5 above) a housing (8) containing the coaxial assembly of the rotor (3) and the stator (2) and the cooling structure (Abstract; ¶ 36 to ¶ 40).
Regarding claim 11/10/9/1, Juris in view of Fukada teaches the device of claim 9, Juris further teaches (see figs. 1-5 above) the cooling structure includes a coolant inlet (17) at the first end and a coolant outlet (18) at the second end; and wherein the housing (8) includes a manifold (20) defining the inlet (17) and the outlet (18) (¶ 36; ¶ 37).
Regarding claim 12/1, Juris in view of Fukada teaches the device of claim 1, Juris further teaches (see figs. 1-5 above) a source of coolant provided to the coolant structure to flow through the channels (25) from the first end to the second end (Abstract; ¶ 41 to ¶ 44).
Regarding claim 14/9/1, Juris in view of Fukada teaches the device of claim 1, Juris further teaches (see figs. 1-5 above) a rotary electric motor as claimed in claim 9, being a motor in an aircraft (Abstract; ¶ 2 to ¶ 4; ¶ 46) (intended use limitation not given patentable weight, see MPEP 2111.02 (II)).
Regarding claim 15/1, Juris in view of Fukada teaches the device of claim 1, Juris does not explicitly teach the perforations are configured to reduce flow losses.
However, Fukada teaches (see fig. 9 above) the perforations (42) are configured to reduce flow losses (the structure of the perforations exist therefore they can perform the function of reducing flow losses, see ¶ 52) in order to improve overall heat transfer performance (Fukada, ¶ 52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device Juris and provide the perforations are configured to reduce flow losses as taught by Fukada in order to improve overall heat transfer performance (Fukada, ¶ 52).
8. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juris in view of Fukada as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Bradfield (US 20110254392).
Regarding claim 13/12/1, Juris in view of Fukada teaches the device of claim 12 but does not explicitly teach the coolant is air.
However, Bradfield teaches the coolant is air (Abstract; ¶ 23 to ¶ 27) in order to provide improved cooling efficiency at low costs (Bradfield, ¶ 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device Juris in view of Fukada and provide the coolant is air as taught by Bradfield in order to provide improved cooling efficiency at low costs (Bradfield, ¶ 30).
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER A SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-0243. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm.
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, Seye Iwarere can be reached at 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.
/ALEXANDER A SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights