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 .
Claim Interpretation
The term “end fiber,” as recited in the claims, is interpreted consistent with the Applicant’s disclosure, see Fig. 2 and description of element 6, as a ring or disc-shaped stator end insulating component(element 6) configured to support and guide stator windings, similar to an end plate or coil holder. The claims are evaluated using this interpretation.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-8, 17, and 19-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over HANDA(US20130270931A1) in view of MORITA(JP2009201217A).
Regarding claim 1, Handa teaches a direct cooled electric motor(1) for a traction drive of an electric vehicle(Para[0002]), adapted to be cooled by a coolant(OL), the electric motor comprising: a housing(40) receiving a stator core(31) the stator core including a steel lamination stack(laminated magnetic steel sheets), a rotor(20) arranged to rotate radially inside the stator core(31), and a plurality of windings(32) extending axially through the stator core(31) and axially beyond a plurality of axial ends of the stator core(31), and at least one ring-shaped end fiber(33a, 33b combined with connected part 42b); wherein the at least one end fiber(33a, 33b connecting to 42b) is arranged at a respective axial end of the plurality of axial ends of the stator core(31), extends in a circumferential direction and in a radial direction over the respective axial end of the stator core(31).
Handa does not explicitly teach a plurality of winding apertures arranged circumferentially around the at least one end fiber wherein the plurality of windings extend through the plurality of winding apertures; and wherein an inner diameter of the at least one end fiber is smaller than an outer diameter of the rotor.
However, Morita teaches a plurality of winding apertures(89) arranged circumferentially around the at least one end fiber(97,90) wherein the plurality of windings(91) extend through the plurality of winding apertures(89); and wherein an inner diameter of the at least one end fiber is smaller than an outer diameter of the rotor(diameter of 97 is inside rotor therefore it is smaller than the diameter of the rotor).
Morita is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention of Handa because they are in the same field of electric machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Handa wherein a plurality of winding apertures arranged circumferentially around the at least one end fiber wherein the plurality of windings extend through the plurality of winding apertures; and wherein an inner diameter of the at least one end fiber is smaller than an outer diameter of the rotor, as taught by Morita. One would be motivated to do this in order to control oil flow at the stator end while mechanically guiding and stabilizing the end windings to improve cooling.
Regarding claim 2/1, Handa in view of Morita teaches the direct cooled electric motor according to claim 1.
Morita further teaches wherein the atleast one end fiber(97 of 90) has a radial inner edge(edge of wall 97) and at the radial inner edge, radially overlaps the rotor(15)(Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 3/1, Handa in view of Morita teaches the direct cooled electric motor according to claim 1.
Handa in view of Morita does not explicitly teach wherein an end fiber axial clearance between the at least one end fiber and the rotor is smaller than the half of the difference between the outer diameter of the rotor and the inner diameter of the end fiber.
However, it would have been It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have an end fiber axial clearance between the at least one end fiber and the rotor is smaller than the half of the difference between the outer diameter of the rotor and the inner diameter of the end fiber, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art . In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One would be motivated to do this in order in order avoid mechanical interference between the rotor and the end fiber while maintaining efficient cooling at the stator end.
Regarding claim 4/1, Handa in view of Morita teaches the direct cooled electric motor according to claim 1.
Handa in view of Morita does not explicitly teach wherein an end fiber axial clearance between the at least one end fiber and the rotor is 0.3mm to 15mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the end fiber axial clearance between the at least one end fiber and the rotor be 0.3mm to 15mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art . In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One would be motivated to do this in order avoid mechanical interference between the rotor and the end fiber while maintaining efficient cooling at the stator end.
Regarding claim 7/1, Handa in view of Morita teaches the direct cooled electric motor according to claim 1.
Handa in view of Morita does not explicitly teach wherein an end fiber radial clearance between a radially inner edge of the atleast one end fiber and the rotor is one of equal to and smaller than an end fiber axial clearance between the atleast one end fiber and the rotor.
However, it would have been It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have an end fiber radial clearance between a radially inner edge of the atleast one end fiber and the rotor is one of equal to and smaller than an end fiber axial clearance between the atleast one end fiber and the rotor, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art . In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One would be motivated to do this in order in order avoid mechanical interference between the rotor and the end fiber while maintaining efficient cooling at the stator end.
Regarding claim 8/1, Handa in view of Morita teaches the direct cooled electric motor according to claim 1.
Handa in view of Morita does not explicitly teach wherein an end fiber radial clearance between the at least one end fiber and the rotor is 0.3mm to 15mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the end fiber radial clearance between the at least one end fiber and the rotor be 0.3mm to 15mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art . In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One would be motivated to do this in order avoid mechanical interference between the rotor and the end fiber while maintaining efficient cooling at the stator end.
Regarding claim 17/1, Handa in view of Morita teaches the direct cooled electric motor according to claim 1.
Handa further teaches wherein the at least one end fiber(33a, 33b) further includes at least one radially outer contact surface(end of 33a, 33b) contacting and preferably providing a seal with the housing(40)(Fig. 1, shows end fibers contacting housing).
Regarding claim 19/1, Handa in view of Morita teaches the direct cooled electric motor according to claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the atleast one end fiber is composed of plastic.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the atleast one end fiber be composed of plastic, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. One would be motivated to use plastic for cost effectiveness.
Regarding claim 20/1, Handa in view of Morita teaches the direct cooled electric motor according to claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one end fiber is manufactured structured as a standalone injection-molded component and at least a main body of the at least one end fiber is made out composed of polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) material.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the at least one end fiber be manufactured structured as a standalone injection-molded component and at least a main body of the at least one end fiber be made out composed of polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. One would be motivated to do this in order to increase structural integrity which increases longevity.
Regarding claim 21/1, Handa in view of Morita teaches the direct cooled electric motor according to claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one end fiber is a portion of a stator core over molding structure composed of a thermoset material.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the at least one end fiber is a portion of a stator core over molding structure composed of a thermoset material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. One would be motivated to do this in order to increase structural integrity with the stator which increases longevity.
Regarding claim 22/1, Handa in view of Morita teaches the direct cooled electric motor according to claim 1.
Handa further teaches wherein the stator core(31), the rotor(2), the plurality of windings(32), and the at least one end fiber(33a, 33b) are exposed to and are in direct contact with the coolant(OL)(Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 23/1, Handa in view of Morita teaches the direct cooled electric motor according to claim 1.
Handa further teaches wherein the coolant is a mixture of a dielectric fluid(OL) and air(inherent)(Para[0044]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over HANDA(US20130270931A1) in view of MORITA(JP2009201217A) and further in view of ARNOLD(US4250417A).
Regarding claim 5/1, Handa in view of Morita teaches the direct cooled electric motor according to claim 1.
Handa in view of Morita is silent wherein the atleast one end fiber further includes an airgap flow deflector with at least one inclined surface disposed in an area of n airgap between the stator core and rotor.
However, Arnold teaches an electric motor wherein the atleast one end fiber further includes an airgap flow deflector(39) with at least one inclined surface disposed in an area of n airgap between the stator core(5) and rotor(19)(Figs. 5-7).
Arnold is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention of Handa in view of Morita because they are in the same field of electric machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Handa in view of Morita wherein the atleast one end fiber further includes an airgap flow deflector with at least one inclined surface disposed in an area of n airgap between the stator core and rotor, as taught by Arnold. One would be motivated to do this in order to further control and guide coolant flow within the motor to increase cooling and efficiency.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over HANDA(US20130270931A1) in view of MORITA(JP2009201217A) and further in view of KROL(US2017353064A1).
Regarding claim 13/1, Handa in view of Morita teaches the direct cooled electric motor according to claim 1.
The combination is silent wherein: the at least one end fiber includes a recess forming a coolant passage between the at least one end fiber and the stator core a width of the coolant passage in an axial direction is one of equal to and smaller than an end fiber axial clearance between the at least one end fiber and the rotor.
However, Krol teaches wherein: the at least one end fiber includes a recess(12) forming a coolant passage(3) between the at least one end fiber and the stator core(Fig. 1).
Krol does not explicitly wherein a width of the coolant passage in an axial direction is one of equal to and smaller than an end fiber axial clearance between the at least one end fiber and the rotor.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a width of the coolant passage in an axial direction is one of equal to and smaller than an end fiber axial clearance between the at least one end fiber and the rotor, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art . In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
One would be motivated to add the teachings of Krol in order to effectively increase stator end cooling while preventing coolant intrusion into the rotor airgap to increase efficiency.
Regarding claim 14/13, Handa in view of Morita and Krol teaches the direct cooled electric motor according to claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the width of the coolant passage in the axial direction is in range of between 0.3mm to 15mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a width of the coolant passage in the axial direction is in range of between 0.3mm to 15mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art . In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One would be motivated do this in order to effectively increase stator end cooling while preventing coolant intrusion into the rotor airgap to increase efficiency.
Regarding claim 15/13, Handa in view of Morita and Krol teaches the direct cooled electric motor according to claim 1.
Krol further teaches wherein the stator core(core of 2) includes at least two cooling channels(3) extending axially through the stator core; and the recess(12) of the coolant passage fluidly connects at least one of (i) at least two of the at least two cooling channels(3) with each other and (ii) at least one of the at least two cooling channels(3) with at least one of a coolant outlet(out from 13) and a cooling inlet(in from 5)(Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9-12, 16, and 18, is/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.
Regarding claim 6/5, the prior art of record does not teach the limitation, “wherein the airgap flow deflector converges towards the rotor to the inner diameter of the at least one end fiber”, in combination of the limitations of the base claim and the intervening claims.
Regarding claim 9/1, the prior art of record does not teach the limitation, “wherein the at least one end fiver forms a part of an airgap labyrinth seal and a plurality of rotational counterparts of the labyrinth seal are provided by the rotor”, in combination of the limitations of the base claim and the intervening claims.
Regarding claim 10/1, the prior art of record does not teach the limitation, “the at least one deflection surface is at least one of inclined and chamfered; and in an axial plane containing a rotational axis of the rotor, a deflection angle of the at least one deflection surface between a plane extending perpendicular to the rotational axis of the rotor and the at least one deflection surface is 0 degree to 90 degrees.”, in combination of the limitations of the base claim and the intervening claims.
Claims 11-12 are objected for being dependent on claim 10.
Regarding claim 16/15, the prior art of record does not teach the limitation, “wherein the at least two cooling channels are fluidly connected in series and the coolant passage fluidly connects the at least two cooling channels such that the coolant is flowable in opposite directions axially through the stator core” in combination of the limitations of the base claim and the intervening claims.
Regarding claim 18/1, the prior art of record does not teach the limitation, “the impeller
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)-272-8310. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tulsidas Patel can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pairdirect. uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MOHAMMED AHMED QURESHI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834