DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-19 of U.S. Application No. 18/665,142 filed on 05/15/2024 are presented for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/26/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “stator for an axial flux machine”
Claim Objections
Claims 2-14, 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“A stator…” in the preamble of claims 2-14 should read, “The stator…”
“An axial flux machine…: a stator” in the preamble of claim 17 should read, “The axial flux machine…: the stator”
Appropriate correction is required.
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: reference numeral “1300” in the specifications. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “580b” in fig. 12. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
The drawings are objected to because the numeral references 1500, and 1600 in fig. 11 are switched, for example, 1500 used one time to show stator bar, and other time to show narrow side bar and vice versa. Same for 1600. 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 § 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.
Claims 1-2, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leijnen, Peter (EP 3764526; Hereinafter, “Peter”).
Regarding claim 1: Peter discloses a stator (100) for an axial flux machine (title), comprising:
a plurality of stator bars (105) disposed circumferentially at intervals (fig. 1) around an axis (103), each of the stator bars (105) having a set of windings (501-504; fig. 5) wound therearound to form a stator coil stack (fig. 1, 5) for generating a magnetic field generally parallel to the axis (axial flux; the title), the plurality of stator coil stacks (501-504) being arranged to provide a hollow region (within inner structure 102) at the centre of the axis (103);
a housing (101, 102, 401, 402; fig. 4) for enclosing the plurality of stator bars (105) to form a chamber flooded with a cooling fluid (cooling channels 201, 202; see coolant flow fig. 6-8), the housing having an inlet for receiving the cooling fluid and an outlet for expelling the cooling fluid (para [0009]); and
a plurality of barriers (104) within the housing (fig. 6), each of the barriers (104) being located between respective adjacent stator bars (105).
PNG
media_image1.png
429
579
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2/1: Peter discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the barriers (104) are dimensioned to permit at least a portion of the cooling fluid to flow (fig. 6-8) between adjacent stator bars (105).
Regarding claim 4/1: Peter discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that one or more of the barriers (104) are electrically insulating (para [0043]).
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 3, 5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peter in view of Klassen et al. (US 2019/0288587; Hereinafter, “Klassen”).
Regarding claim 3/1: Peter discloses the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose that one or more of the barriers comprises a barrier formed of two barrier layers adjacent each other located between the respective stator bars.
Klassen teaches forming one or more of the barriers (36) comprises a barrier formed of two barrier layers (laminates 36; para [0025]) adjacent each other located between the respective stator bars (fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the one or more of the barriers of the stator of Peter of two barrier layers adjacent each other located between the respective stator bars as disclosed by Klassen to be able to selectively adjust the amount of coolant passing by the two stator bars by adjusting the desired thickness.
Regarding claim 5/1: Peter discloses the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose that one or more of the barriers are electrically conductive.
Klassen teaches forming one or more of the barriers of electrically conductive material (ferromagnetic material posts; para [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the one or more of the barriers of the stator of Peter with the one or more of the barriers are electrically conductive as disclosed by Klassen since such material is good hear conductor (para [0019]).
Regarding claim 7/1: Peter discloses the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose that at least one of the barriers comprises a central barrier layer and two outer layers either side of the central barrier layer.
Klassen discloses at least one of the barriers (36) comprises a central barrier (central lamination of the laminated post 36) layer and two outer layers either side of the central barrier layer (the other laminations on sides of the center laminations forming post 36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the one or more of the barriers of the stator of Peter with at least one of the barriers comprises a central barrier layer and two outer layers either side of the central barrier layer as disclosed by Klassen to be able to selectively adjust the amount of coolant passing by the two stator bars by adjusting the desired thickness.
Claim 15, 17-19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peter in view of Alexander et al. (GB 2546255; Hereinafter, “Alexander”).
Regarding claim 15/1: Peter discloses the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose that the housing and stator coil stacks are arranged to permit the cooling fluid to flow back and forth between the inner and outer radius of the stator coil stacks.
Alexander discloses the housing (abstract) and stator coil stacks (26) are arranged to permit the cooling fluid to flow back and forth (see the arrows in fig. 6) between the inner and outer radius of the stator coil stacks.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the stator of Peter with the housing and stator coil stacks are arranged to permit the cooling fluid to flow back and forth between the inner and outer radius of the stator coil stacks as disclosed by Alexander to reduce the heat irregularities/gradient in the different stator parts.
Regarding claim 17/1, 18/17: Peter discloses the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose that a stator; a rotor comprising a set of permanent magnets and mounted for rotation about the axis of the machine, the rotor being spaced apart from the stator along the axis of the machine to define a gap between the stator and rotor; a second rotor comprising a set of permanent magnets and mounted for rotation about the axis of the machine, the second rotor being spaced apart from the stator along the axis of the machine to define a gap between the stator and second rotor, and the second rotor being disposed on a side of the stator opposed to the rotor.
Alexander discloses a stator (3); a rotor (1, 2) comprising a set of permanent magnets (5) and mounted for rotation about the axis (4) of the machine (fig. 1-3), the rotor (1, 2) being spaced apart from the stator (3) along the axis of the machine to define a gap (air gap required for the rotor rotation) between the stator and rotor; a second rotor (the other of 1, and 2) comprising a set of permanent magnets (5) and mounted for rotation about the axis (4) of the machine, the second rotor (2) being spaced apart from the stator (3) along the axis (4) of the machine to define a gap (the air gap required for the rotor to rotate) between the stator (3) and second rotor (1, 2), and the second rotor being disposed on a side of the stator opposed to the rotor (fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the machine of Peter with a stator; a rotor comprising a set of permanent magnets and mounted for rotation about the axis of the machine, the rotor being spaced apart from the stator along the axis of the machine to define a gap between the stator and rotor; a second rotor comprising a set of permanent magnets and mounted for rotation about the axis of the machine, the second rotor being spaced apart from the stator along the axis of the machine to define a gap between the stator and second rotor, and the second rotor being disposed on a side of the stator opposed to the rotor as disclosed by Alexander to be able to receive the torque of the stator through the rotors.
Regarding claim 19/17/1: Peter in view of Alexander discloses the limitations of claim 17 and Peter further discloses that the machine is a motor or a generator (para [0002]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8-14, 16 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED ELNAKIB whose telephone number is (571)270-0638. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-4:00PM. 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.
/AHMED ELNAKIB/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2834