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 .
This Office Action is in response to papers filed on 1/28/2026. Amendments made to the claims and the Applicant's remarks have been entered and considered.
Claim 15 has been amended. Claims 1-14, 16, 17 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 15, 18-28 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The claims are rejected in view of newly-applied Murakami et al. (US 2021/0234416 A1).
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.
Claim(s) 15, 16, 18-24, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Murakami et al. (US 2021/0234416 A1, hereinafter Murakami).
As to claim 15, Murakami shows (FIG. 1, 18) A stator cooling arrangement for a stator of an electric drive engine in a motor vehicle (para[0027]), comprising:
stator core 112 cooling 950 with a first coolant, wherein the stator core 112 cooling 950 comprises a stator cooling jacket 60 configured to conduct the first coolant outside a workspace of the electric drive engine 10; and
stator winding head 110 cooling comprising a plurality of outlet openings 3581 formed in an axial end portion of the stator cooling jacket 60, wherein the plurality of outlet openings 3581 is arranged radially outside a stator winding head 110 and in an upper circumferential half of the stator cooling jacket 60, and wherein the plurality of outlet openings 3581 is configured to inject a second coolant, which differs from the first coolant, onto the stator winding head 110 into the workspace of the electric drive engine 10 (coolants are water, oil para [0030],[0057],[0060],[0119],[0120]).
As to claim 18/15, Murakami further shows (FIG. 7, 8) the second coolant of the stator winding head cooling is electrically non-conductive (this is implied because the oil is in the motor 10 interior para [0127])).
As to claim 19/15, Murakami further shows (FIG. 18) a first coolant circuit 950 for the first coolant and a second cooling circuit 35 for the second coolant form a heat exchanger 50 configured to transfer thermal energy between the first coolant circuit 950 and the second coolant circuit 35 (para [0041],[0085]).
As to claim 20/15, Murakami further shows (FIG. 18) the first coolant of the stator core 112 cooling 950 is a water-based coolant, and/or wherein the second coolant of the stator winding head 110 cooling is an oil-based coolant (para[0041]).
As to claim 21/15, Murakami further shows (FIG. 18) A drive cooling arrangement, comprising:
the stator cooling arrangement according to claim 15; and
a rotor 10a cooling arrangement that is formed with the second coolant (it is implied that oil impacting the coil end 110 will also cool the rotor 10a).
As to claim 22/21/15, Murakami further shows (FIG. 18) a second coolant circuit 35, which is configured to supply the stator winding head 110 cooling and the rotor 10a cooling arrangement with the second coolant, and is configured to not supply the stator core 112 cooling (stator core 112 is cooled by water and there is heat exchange between water and oil of second circuit 35 para[0045]).
As to claim 23/22/21/15, Murakami further shows (FIG. 18) the second coolant circuit 35 comprises an engine cooling path 3581 for cooling the electric drive engine 10, by which the rotor cooling arrangement and the stator winding head 110 cooling is constituted.
As to claim 24/22/21/15, Murakami further shows (FIG. 18) the second coolant circuit 35 comprises a gear temperature-control path 3 for cooling an output gear 14 (cooling of differential device 14 with oil para[0031]).
As to claim 27/15, Murakami further shows (FIG. 7, 8) An electromotive drive unit for a motor vehicle, comprising:
an electric drive engine 10 and an output gear 14 for the electric drive engine; and
the stator cooling arrangement according to claim 15 (vehicle with differential 14 para[0030]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 25, 26, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. (US 2021/0234416 A1, hereinafter Murakami) in view of Neudorfer (EP 0990820 A2).
As to claim 25/21/15, Murakami was discussed above with respect to claim 21 except for the second coolant circuit comprises a junction upstream of a heat exchanger of the stator cooling arrangement, at which junction the engine cooling path and the gear temperature-control path split up.
Neudorfer shows (FIG. 5c,5d) the coolant circuit comprises a junction 32 upstream of a heat exchanger of the stator 1 cooling arrangement, at which junction 32 the engine cooling path and the gear temperature-control path split up (para[0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second coolant circuit 35 of Murakami to have the second coolant circuit 35 comprises a junction 32 upstream of a heat exchanger of the stator cooling arrangement 22, at which junction the engine cooling path 22,70 and the gear temperature-control path 50 split up as taught by Neudorfer, for the advantageous benefit of allowing a temperature of the gear 14 to rise to an optimum temperature before the second coolant flows through the gear temperature-control path as taught by Neudorfer (para[0025]).
As to claim 26/25/21/15, Murakami in view of Neudorfer was discussed above with respect to claim 25 except for a branch valve is provided in the second coolant circuit and is configured to adjust an oil mass flow at the junction, which branch valve can assume an open state and a closed state, wherein the engine cooling path is blocked in the closed state.
Neudorfer shows (FIG. 5c,5d) for a branch valve 32 is provided in the second coolant circuit and is configured to adjust an oil mass flow at the junction, which branch valve 32 can assume an open state and a closed state, wherein the engine cooling path 1 is blocked in the closed state (para[0025],[0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second coolant circuit 35 of Murakami in view of Neudorfer to have a branch valve 32 is provided in the second coolant circuit 35 and is configured to adjust an oil mass flow at the junction 32, which branch valve 32 can assume an open state and a closed state, wherein the engine cooling path 50 is blocked in the closed state as taught by Neudorfer, for the advantageous benefit of allowing a temperature of the gear 14 to rise to an optimum temperature before the second coolant flows through the gear temperature-control path as taught by Neudorfer (para[0025]).
As to claim 28/21/15, Murakami was discussed above with respect to claim 21 except for:
determining an operating state of the drive engine; and
switching the branch valve depending on the ascertained operating state.
Neudorfer shows (FIG. 5c,5d)
determining an operating state of the drive engine 2; and
switching the branch valve 32 depending on the ascertained operating state (para[0025],[0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second coolant circuit 35 of Murakami to have
determining an operating state of the drive engine 10; and
switching the branch valve 32 depending on the ascertained operating state
as taught by Neudorfer, for the advantageous benefit of allowing a temperature of the gear 14 to rise to an optimum temperature before the second coolant flows through the gear temperature-control path as taught by Neudorfer (para[0025]).
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 ROBERT E MATES whose telephone number is (571)270-5293. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 12:00pm to 8pm.
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.
/ROBERT E MATES/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights