DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-14 of U.S. Application 18/661912 filed on May 13, 2024 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 .
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 13, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
5. The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The features of claim 3, lines 1-2, “the perforations have a circular cross-section” are not included in the specification.
The features of claim 4, lines 1-2, “the perforations have a non-circular cross-section” are not included in the specification.
The features of claim 6, lines 1-2, “the radiator body is formed by a lost-wax casting method” are not included in the specification
Claim Objections
6. Claims 11 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 11, lines 1-2, “the colling structure” should be -- the cooling structure --.
Claim 12, line 3, “from the first end to the second air” should be -- from the first end to the second end --
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 5-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrenberger (DE 102021106887, see English Machine Translation attached) in view of Bradfield (US 20110254392).
Regarding claim 1, Ehrenberger teaches (see fig. 1 below) a cooling structure for a rotary electric machine (Abstract),
the structure comprising: an annular radiator body (see annotated fig. 1 below) defining an axis X between a first end and a second end, the annular radiator body (see annotated fig. 1 below) including: a radially inner wall (5); a radially outer wall (16) (pages 6-7); and
a channel (SR1, SR2) defined between the radially inner wall (5) and the radially outer wall (16), extending from the first end to the second end, the channel comprising: a divider wall (12) extending along the axis between the first end and the second end, separating the respective channel (SR1, SR2) into two sub-channels (SR1 and SR2), the divider wall (12) having a corrugated shape defining alternating peaks and valleys along the axial length of the divider wall (12) (pages 6-7).
PNG
media_image1.png
502
808
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ehrenberger does not explicitly teach a plurality of channels, each extending from the first end to the second end.
However, Bradfield teaches (see fig. 2 below) a plurality of channels (86), each extending from the first end to the second end (¶ 25; ¶ 30) in order to improve the cooling efficiency of the device (Bradfield, ¶ 30).
PNG
media_image2.png
461
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 Ehrenberger and provide a plurality of channels, each extending from the first end to the second end as taught by Bradfield in order to improve the cooling efficiency of the device (Bradfield, ¶ 30).
Regarding claim 5/1, Ehrenberger in view of Bradfield teaches the device of claim 1, Ehrenberger further teaches (see fig. 1 above) the radiator body is formed by additive manufacturing (product by process limitation, not given patentable weight, see below).
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 6/1, Ehrenberger in view of Bradfield teaches the device of claim 1, Ehrenberger further teaches (see fig. 1 above) the radiator body is formed by a lost-wax casting method (product by process limitation, not given patentable weight, see below).
The Examiner points out the limitation of “formed by a lost-wax casting method” 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, Ehrenberger in view of Bradfield teaches the device of claim 1, Ehrenberger further teaches (see fig. 1 above) the divider wall is formed by additive manufacturing (product by process limitation, not given patentable weight, see below).
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, Ehrenberger in view of Bradfield teaches the device of claim 1, Ehrenberger further teaches (see fig. 1 above) a coolant inlet (20a) at the first end and a coolant outlet (7b) at the second end (pages 6-7).
Regarding claim 9/1, Ehrenberger in view of Bradfield teaches the device of claim 1, Ehrenberger further teaches (see fig. 1 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; page 2).
Regarding claim 10/9/1, Ehrenberger in view of Bradfield teaches the device of claim 9, Ehrenberger further teaches (see fig. 1 above) a housing (6, 7, 17) containing the coaxial assembly of the rotor (3) and the stator 92) and the cooling structure (Abstract; page 6).
Regarding claim 12/1, Ehrenberger in view of Bradfield teaches the device of claim 1, Ehrenberger further teaches (see fig. 1 above) a source of coolant provided to the coolant structure to flow through the channels (SR1, SR2) from the first end to the second air (Abstract; pages 4 and 6-7).
Regarding claim 13/12/1, Ehrenberger in view of Bradfield teaches the device of claim 1, Ehrenberger further teaches (see fig. 1 above) the coolant is air (page 4).
Regarding claim 14/9/1, Ehrenberger in view of Bradfield teaches the device of claim 1, Ehrenberger further teaches (see fig. 1 above) a rotary electric motor as claimed in claim 9, being a motor in an aircraft (Abstract) (intended use limitation not given patentable weight, see MPEP 2111.02 (II)).
9. Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrenberger in view of Bradfield as applied to claim 1, above and further in view of Fukada (US 20200370834).
Regarding claim 2/1, Ehrenberger in view of Bradfield teaches the device of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach the divider wall is provided with perforations therethrough.
However, Fukada teaches (see fig. 9 below) the divider wall (16) is provided with perforations (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 Ehrenberger in view of Bradfield and provide the divider wall is provided with perforations therethrough as taught by Fukada in order to increase turbulence and thereby improve overall heat transfer performance (Fukada, ¶ 52).
PNG
media_image3.png
418
694
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3/2/1, Ehrenberger in view of Bradfield and Fukada teaches the device of claim 2 but 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 Ehrenberger in view of Bradfield and Fukada 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 4/2/1, Ehrenberger in view of Bradfield and Fukada teaches the device of claim 2 but 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 Ehrenberger in view of Bradfield and Fukada 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).
10. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrenberger in view of Bradfield as applied to claim 10, above and further in view of Usui (US 20060048921).
Regarding claim 11/10/9/1, Ehrenberger in view of Bradfield teaches the device of claim 10, Ehrenberger further teaches (see fig. 1 above) the colling structure includes a coolant inlet (20a) at the first end and a coolant outlet (7b) at the second end (pages 6-7).
Ehrenberger in view of Bradfield does not explicitly teach the housing includes a manifold defining the inlet and the outlet.
However, Usui teaches (see fig. 11 below) the housing (50) includes a manifold (51) defining the inlet (W1) and the outlet (W-2) (¶ 48) in order to improve cooling efficiency by making the distribution and flow velocity uniform by promoting efficient heat transfer (Usui, Abstract).
PNG
media_image4.png
356
718
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 Ehrenberger in view of Bradfield and provide the housing includes a manifold defining the inlet and the outlet as taught by Usui in order to improve cooling efficiency by making the distribution and flow velocity uniform by promoting efficient heat transfer (Usui, Abstract).
Conclusion
11. 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