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 . Claims 12-24 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In Claim 20, it’s unclear what Applicant means by “a constant mean circumferential position.” In this Office action, “a constant mean circumferential position” is interpreted as uniform distribution of the loops of the cooling channel in the axial direction around the stator.
Claims 22-23 are rejected because they depend on an indefinite claim.
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 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.
Claims 12-13, 15-17, 19-20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oestreich, M., (US 20080303359 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
277
399
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
280
371
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Oestreich discloses a cooling body (cooling jacket, see the title: “Electrical Machine Having A Cooling Jacket”, see also figs. 1-4) configured to abut against an outer surface to be cooled of a stator housing (implied), comprising:
a circumferential wall (wall, annotated figs. 3 and 4), wherein
a cut-out circumferential region is cut out from the circumferential wall along at least a part of a longitudinal extent thereof as a cutout (see the remaining half circles in fig. 3) such that
wall edges (edges, annotated figs. 3 and 4) formed as a result are configured to be brought into abutment against the outer surface of the stator housing (see annotated figs. 3 and 4; see also para [0014] and [0015]: “[0014] The helix is adhesively bonded to the motor jacket and/or to the outer jacket. This at the same time results in sealing, with the result that forward flow and in particular return flow of the coolant in predetermined channels is provided. [0015] In a further embodiment, the helix can also be welded to the motor jacket.”).
Regarding claim 13, Oestreich discloses the cooling body according to claim 12, wherein the circumferential wall is in a form of a flexible fabric and/or plastic tube (para [0012]: “However, the helix may also comprise a nonmetallic material such as plastic, for example.”).
Regarding claim 15, Oestreich discloses the cooling body according to claim 12, wherein the wall edges form contact surfaces which are configured to be adhesively bonded and/or fused in a cooling-fluid-tight manner to the outer surface of the stator housing (see para [0014] and [0015] cited regarding claim 12).
Regarding claim 16, Oestreich discloses the cooling body according to claim 12, wherein the cut-out circumferential region makes up a proportion of between 25% and 60% of an entire circumference (implied; in fig. 3, 50% of the circle is removed and another 50% is left).
Regarding claim 17, Oestreich discloses the cooling body according to claim 16, wherein the cut-out circumferential region makes up a proportion of between 30% and 40% of the entire circumference (see fig. 4, the cut-out portion is 1/3 of the triangle amounting to about 33%. In general, the amount of cut-out is a result effective variable that can be optimized by a person having ordinary skills in the art).
Regarding claim 19, Oestreich discloses the cooling body according to claim 12, wherein, away from the cut-out circumferential region, a line cross section of the cooling body is part-ellipsoid form, circular-segment-shaped form (see fig. 3), prismatic form (see fig. 4), or rectangular form.
Regarding claim 20, Oestreich discloses the cooling body according to claim 12, wherein the cutout has a constant mean circumferential position along the longitudinal extent of the cutout (the channels are uniformly distributed along the longitudinal axis of the stator; see figs. 3, 4 and 6).
Regarding claim 22, Oestreich discloses the stator-housing arrangement according to claim 20,
PNG
media_image3.png
341
516
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein an entry interface (inlet, annotated fig. 6) and an exit interface (outlet, annotated fig. 6) for the cooling fluid are arranged on opposite ends of the cooling body (see fig. 6; at the location marked as outlet, the cooling fluid exits the inner channels and is redirected in the reverse direction to flow within the outer channels).
Regarding claim 23, Oestreich discloses the stator-housing arrangement according to claim 20, wherein a conductor of the cooling fluid outside the cooling body is formed away from other constituent parts of the stator housing (see outside wall 1 in figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 24, Oestreich as discussed regarding claim 12, discloses a method for assembling a stator-house arrangement, comprising:
winding a cooling body and/or pushing on the cooling body in a spread manner around an outer surface of a stator-shell receptacle (hollow helix, see abstract), wherein
the cooling body includes a circumferential wall (wall, annotated figs. 3 and 4), wherein a cut-out circumferential region is cut out from the circumferential wall along at least a part of a longitudinal extent thereof as a cutout (see half circles in fig. 3) such that
wall edges (edges, annotated figs. 3 and 4) formed as a result are configured to be brought into abutment against the outer surface of the stator housing; and adhesively bonding and/or fusing the cooling body to the outer surface (see fig. 3; see also para [0014] and [0015]: “[0014] The helix is adhesively bonded to the motor jacket and/or to the outer jacket. This at the same time results in sealing, with the result that forward flow and in particular return flow of the coolant in predetermined channels is provided. [0015] In a further embodiment, the helix can also be welded to the motor jacket.”)
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.
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.
Claims 14, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oestreich, M., (US 20080303359 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Oestreich discloses the cooling body according to claim 12, wherein the circumferential wall is formed by a deep-drawn sheet-metal construction (implied; see para [0011]: “The helix is made from a comparatively highly thermally conductive material, in particular from a metallic material such as copper or aluminum, for example.”; note: in a product claim, the method by which a part is made has no patentable weight; see MPEP 2113 (I)).
Regarding claim 18, Oestreich discloses the cooling body according to claim 12, wherein a pliability of the circumferential wall is configured to allow the cooling body to be wound multiple times around the outer surface of the stator housing (implied due to forming spiral around the stator and the cooling body being made of plastic), wherein the outer surface is in the form of a cylinder shell (implied).
Regarding claim 21, Oestreich discloses a stator-housing arrangement for an electric drive machine (intended application has no impact on the scope of the cooling body), comprising:
a stator housing with a stator-shell receptacle (implied, a hollow helix is the cooling jacket), said stator-shell receptacle having a cylinder inner shell to accommodate a stator outer shell, and having an outer surface which is in the form of a cylinder shell (implied); and
at least one cooling body according to claim 12 that is arranged on the outer surface of the stator housing and is connected thereto at the wall edges (see fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MASOUD VAZIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-2340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm EST..
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, the examiner’s supervisor, SEYE IWARERE can be reached on (571) 270-5112. 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.
/MASOUD VAZIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834