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 .
Response to Amendment
Regarding objections to the drawings:
The drawings were objected to for having a claimed feature not shown and other multiple informalities. The Applicant cancelled claims 10 and 12, provided replacement drawings sheets, and amended the specification with relation to the drawings to correct the informalities, therefore most of the objections were withdrawn but the drawings remain objected to due to a reference character in figure 9 not being mentioned in the description.
Regarding rejections of the claims under §§102 and 103:
Claims 1-6, 9, and 13-15 were rejected as being anticipated by Kawamura. Claim 7 was rejected as being obvious over Kawamura in view of Berthelemy. Claim 8 was rejected as being obvious over Kawamura in view of Yamamoto. Claims 10-12 were rejected as being obvious over Kawamura in view of Carl. The Applicant amended claims 1-2, 7-9, and 13 and cancelled claims 3-6, 10-12, and 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description:
900 in figure 9.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9 line 1 the phrase “electric machine” should instead be “electrical machine” to match the claim language of claim 1.
In claim 13 line 9 the word “tradezoidal” appears to have been meant to be “trapezoidal.” For examination purposes, the word shall be taken to be “trapezoidal.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent No. 2012-191772 to Kawamura (provided by Applicant on 3/13/2024) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0257885 to Hwang et al. (hereinafter Hwang) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0265654 to Satterfield.
Regarding claim 1, Kawamura teaches an electrical machine (FIG. 3, 3), comprising:
a stator (FIG. 4, 27) comprising
a stator core (FIG. 4, 28) having an annular body (FIG. 4, 28a) and a plurality of poles (FIG. 4, 28b) projecting radially from the annular body,
a coil (FIG. 4, 30) mounted on and surrounding each pole of the stator core, wherein circumferentially adjacent coils are spaced apart to define a plurality of axially extending slots between adjacent poles (FIG. 4, between poles 28b); and
a moulded dielectric material (FIG. 4, 13; Paragraph [0035]) encapsulating the stator core and coils, and
a plurality of cooling bores (FIG. 4, 40) formed in the moulded dielectric material extending into the axially extending slots of the stator; and
a heat sink (FIG. 6, 42) integral to a stator cover (Paragraph [0044]) and positioned adjacent an axial end face of the stator (FIG. 5, 42), the heat sink comprising a body (FIG. 6, 42a) and a plurality of fins (FIG. 6, 42b) extending axially from the body, wherein the plurality of fins extend into the plurality of cooling bores of the dielectric material (FIG. 4, 42b).
Kawamura does not teach the heat sink comprising a disk-shaped body and the plurality of fins having a generally trapezoidal cross sectional shape.
However, Hwang teaches a heat sink with fins (FIG. 4, 311) having a generally trapezoidal cross sectional shape (FIG. 5, 311).
Therefore, 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 electrical machine of Kawamura with the teachings of Hwang to implement a trapezoidal cross sectional shape heat sink fin to maximize the contact area of the fins with the dielectric material and increase heat transfer.
Kawamura in view of Hwang does not teach the heat sink comprising a disk-shaped body.
However, Satterfield teaches a heat sink inserted into a core having a disk-shaped body (FIG. 4A, 228).
Therefore, 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 electrical machine of Kawamura in view of Hwang with the teachings of Satterfield to have a heat sink with a disk-shaped body to increase the surface area of the heat sink body for the heat to be dissipated at a faster rate.
Regarding claim 2, Kawamura in view of Hwang and Satterfield teaches the electrical machine as claimed in claim 1, wherein Kawamura further teaches the plurality of bores being open bores extending axially through the stator (FIG. 3, 40).
Regarding claim 9, Kawamura in view of Hwang and Satterfield teaches the electrical machine as claimed in claim 1, wherein Kawamura further teaches a rotor (FIG. 1, 23).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura in view of Hwang and Satterfield and in further view of German Patent No. 10 2014 215 148 to Berthelemy et al. (hereinafter Berthelemy; provided by Applicant on 3/13/2024).
Regarding claim 7, Kawamura in view of Hwang and Satterfield teaches the electrical machine as claimed in claim 1.
Kawamura in view of Hwang and Satterfield does not teach the coils comprising edge windings.
However, Berthelemy teaches an electric machine with windings (FIG. 2, 2) folded edgewise (Paragraph [0040]).
Therefore, 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 electrical machine of Kawamura in view of Hwang and Satterfield with the teachings of Berthelemy by implementing edge windings due to a high mechanical strength, fill factor, and thermal coupling of the winding (Paragraph [0040]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura in view of Japanese Patent No. 2003-070199 to Yamamoto et al. (hereinafter Yamamoto; provided by Applicant on 3/13/2024).
Regarding claim 8, Kawamura in view of Hwang and Satterfield teaches the electrical machine as claimed in claim 1.
Kawamura in view of Hwang and Satterfield does not teach each coil further comprising a bobbin, windings of the coil being supported on the bobbin, and the bobbin being mounted to the poles of the stator core.
However, Yamamoto teaches an electric machine with a coil comprising a bobbin, windings of the coil being supported on the bobbin, and the bobbin being mounted to the poles of the stator core (Paragraph [0024]).
Therefore, 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 stator of Kawamura in view of Hwang and Satterfield with the teachings of Yamamoto by incorporating a bobbin as it helps in the mounting and forming of the winding.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura in view of Hwang.
Regarding claim 13, Kawamura teaches a method of forming an electric machine (FIG. 3, 3) including a stator, the method comprising:
providing a core assembly (FIG. 4, 27) comprising a stator core (FIG. 4, 28) having a plurality of poles (FIG. 4, 28b) and a plurality of coils (FIG. 4, 30), each mounted on a pole of the stator core;
encapsulating the core assembly in a dielectric material (FIG. 4, 13; Paragraph [0035]) which conforms to a profile of the core assembly to define a plurality of cooling bores (FIG. 4, 40), each bore extending axially between circumferentially adjacent coils (FIG. 3, 40);
providing a heat sink (FIG. 6, 42) integral to a stator cover (Paragraph [0044]), the heat sink having a plurality of fins (FIG. 6, 42b); and
attaching the heat sink to the core assembly such that the plurality of fins extend into the plurality of cooling bores (FIG. 4, 42b).
Kawamura does not teach each fin having a generally trapezoidal cross section.
However, Hwang teaches a heat sink with fins (FIG. 4, 311) having a generally trapezoidal cross sectional shape (FIG. 5, 311).
Therefore, 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 method of Kawamura with the teachings of Hwang to implement a trapezoidal cross sectional shape heat sink fin to maximize the contact area of the fins with the dielectric material and increase heat transfer.
Regarding claim 14, Kawamura in view of Hwang teaches the method of claim 13, wherein Kawamura further teaches encapsulating the core assembly comprises moulding the dielectric material over the core assembly (Paragraph [0030]).
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 JOSHUA KIEL MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 7:00pm ET.
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.
/JOSHUA KIEL M RODRIGUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834