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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding amended claim 1, this is not found persuasive because Wolf in combination with a new reference will be used to address the new limitations in claim 1 (the new reference is required as the limitations are applied differently than the limitations of the canceled claims which changes the scope of the claim).
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding claim 11, this too is not found persuasive for the same reasons as claim 1 (the new limitations change the scope of the claim as they differ from the limitations of the canceled dependent claim).
Specification
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:
Claim 9 appears to show a combination of a cooling device that has both cooling pipes and heat pipes cooled by a nozzle which is absent from applicant’s specification. For examining purposes, the limitations in the claim will be treated as being taiught by the prior art.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wolf et al. (US 20250047153) in view of Zahid et al. (US 20250119025).
1. Wolf et al. teach:
An externally excited electric machine 22 cooling system (figs 1-4), comprising:
rotor windings 9 positioned radially outward from a rotor shaft 3 and including a plurality of gaps (occupied by pole separator 10, figs 2-4) between metal wire bundles; and
a cooling device 10 positioned in the plurality of gaps and configured to directly cool the rotor windings (via cooling ducts 13, figs 1-4); but does not teach that the cooling device includes a plurality of heat pipes; wherein opposing ends of each of the plurality of heat pipes are at least partially positioned in opposing rotor end winding enclosures; and that the plurality of heat pipes are arranged parallel to a rotational axis of the rotor shaft.
PNG
media_image1.png
559
609
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zahid et al. teach that the cooling device/slot wedge jackets 334 includes a plurality of heat pipes 340 (fig 4); wherein opposing ends/heat pipe cavities 351 & 353 of each of the plurality of heat pipes 340 (please see fig 3) are at least partially positioned in opposing rotor end winding enclosures/rotor endcaps 350 & 352; and that the plurality of heat pipes are arranged parallel to a rotational axis of the rotor shaft (for heat pipe cavities being parallel with shaft, see fig 3) to improve heat transfer of the rotor which prolongs the service life of the machine.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention being effectively filed to modify it such that the cooling device includes a plurality of heat pipes; wherein opposing ends of each of the plurality of heat pipes are at least partially positioned in opposing rotor end winding enclosures; and that the plurality of heat pipes are arranged parallel to a rotational axis of the rotor shaft, as taught by Zahid et al. so as to prolong the service life of the rotating machine.
9. Wolf et al. teach:
The externally excited electric machine cooling system of claim 8, wherein the end windings are cooled via a rotor end winding spray nozzle (please see nozzle in rotor endcaps, para 0047). However, since the heat pipes of Zahid et al. are being used in the cooling device of Wolf et al. the service of the rotating electric machine can be improved.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention of Wolf et al. being effectively filed to modify it such that it includes heat pipes that are cooled with a rotor end winding spray nozzle, as taught by Wolf et al. in view of Zahid et al. so as to prolong the service life of the rotating electric machine.
10. Wolf et al. teach:
The externally excited electric machine cooling system of claim 1, wherein a working fluid in the externally excited electric machine cooling system is oil (para 0045 2nd sentence).
Claim(s) 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf et al. in view of Shi et al. (CN 114726135).
11. Wolf et al. teach:
A method for operation of an externally excited electric machine 22 cooling system (figs 1-4), comprising:
flowing a coolant into a cooling device 10 positioned in a plurality of gaps (occupied by pole separator 10, figs 2-4);
wherein the externally excited electric machine cooling system includes:
rotor windings 9 positioned radially outward from a rotor shaft 3 and including the plurality of gaps between metal wire bundles; and
the cooling device positioned in the plurality of gaps and configured to directly cool the rotor windings (via cooling ducts 13, figs 1-4); and spraying coolant onto opposing rotor end windings via the cooling tubes that each receive the coolant from the cooling device (easily seen in fig 1); does not teach using nozzles to spray the coolant.
Shi et al. teach that a multitude of nozzles 503 receiving coolant from a cooling device 502 to spray end windings 3 gives more control of the spraying of the coolant as it is directed as opposed to not having a nozzle. This would also prolong the service life of the rotating electric machine.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention being effectively filed to modify the invention of Wolf et al. such with using nozzles to spray the coolant, as taught by Shi et al. so as to prolong the service life of the rotating electric machine.
12. Wolf et al. teach:
The method of claim 11, further comprising flowing coolant from the cooling device into immersive rotor end winding enclosures 14 & 15 (fig 1).
14. Wolf et al. teach:
The method of claim 11, wherein flowing the coolant into the cooling device includes flowing the coolant from a rotor shaft cooling passage into the cooling device (para 0026 1st half of para).
15. Wolf et al. teach:
The method of claim 11, wherein the externally excited electric machine cooling system includes a plurality of cooling tubes that are embedded in an epoxy (epoxy is a plastic) or a thermoplastic material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRANCE L KENERLY whose telephone number is (571)270-7851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Christopher Koehler can be reached at 5712723560. 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.
/TERRANCE L KENERLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights