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
The amendment submitted 06/19/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-15 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues the prior art are nonanalogous since Schübeler is directed to an impeller and Sawata is directed to a propeller and “are therefore different types of machines”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Sawata is directed towards cooling of motor driving a “propulsive element” (see abstract) which would include impellers, fans, propellers, turbofans, etc. See also Paragraph [0009]. Even if Sawata was limited to only propellers, impellers and propellers may have different operational characteristics (RPM, efficiency, pressures, etc) they both do the same thing in the same way following the same physics of fluid flow. Moreover, the “propeller” of Sawata was not incorporated into the rejection and one of ordinary skill desiring to remove heat from a motor would look to both Schübeler and Sawata as they are both directed towards accomplishing exactly that.
The Applicant further argues that the rejections impermissibly rely on hindsight since Schübeler discloses “no additional units … nor any cooling fluid, need to be used for the additional removal of heat energy” and therefore the combination “[i]mpermissibly alters the clear principle of operation of Schübeler”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While some feature may not be necessary does not mean it cannot be beneficial. While Schübeler did not find it necessary to use a cooling fluid to achieve the additional removal of heat energy, the disclosure of Schübeler may still benefit from even more removal of heat energy, e.g. if the passively controlled cooling air flow of Schübeler provides insufficient cooling for a particularly high power application/motor such as those envisioned by Sawata “high power density electric motors”, Col 1 Lns 59-61).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The Applicant further argues the prior art fails to teach all limitations of the claims since the liquid is introduced “a free space 36 located in front of the air gap 13” and “is not fed to a section of a cooling air channel” as claimed such that “mist from the nozzles 34 does not enter the air gap 13 directly”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no way for cooling air to flow through the motor except through the space inside housing 14 and air gap 13 therefore the entirety of the space within the housing and the air gap together may be interpreted as the cooling channel, as was described in the rejections.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102014209410 to Schübeler (see Applicant provided translation in the file wrapper) in view of US 11859623 to Sawata.
(a) Regarding claim 1:
(i) Schübeler discloses an impeller machine (see abstract) having:
an aero rotor (paddle wheel set 2, Fig 1) for generating an air flow (cooling air flow P, Fig 1) along an annular space (space between housing 1 and unlabeled impeller housing, Fig 2) which is enclosed between an impeller housing (unlabeled annular structure surrounding housing 1 and connected to stator 4, Fig 2) and a motor housing (housing 1, Figs 1-2),
wherein the motor housing is arranged in an inner space of the impeller housing (Fig 2),
wherein an electric motor (“electric motor”, Par 0017) is arranged in an inner space of the motor housing (Fig 2),
wherein the electric motor comprises a motor stator (unlabeled portion connected to housing 1 and surrounding rotor 11, Fig 2) which is connected to the motor housing (Fig 2) and a magnetic rotor (rotor 11, Fig 2) which is connected to the aero rotor (via unlabeled shaft between rotor 11 and paddle wheel set 2, Fig 2),
wherein an annular motor gap is formed between the motor stator and the magnetic rotor (gap at radially outer surface of rotor 11 through which secondary cooling flow S flows, Fig 2), and
having a cooling air channel (flow channel 8, Fig 1; space through which secondary cooling flow S flows, Fig 2; “flow channel”, Par 0006) which extends in the inner space of the motor housing (Fig 2) between an inlet end (inlet opening 9 in Fig 1 or mislabeled inlet opening 12 in Fig 2) and an outlet end (outlet opening 7, Fig 2).
(ii) Schübeler does not disclose:
having a liquid channel, nor
wherein the liquid channel has an opening which is arranged in a portion, which is arranged upstream of the electric motor, of the cooling air channel.
(iii) Sawata is also in the field of impeller machines (see abstract) and teaches:
an electric motor (100, Fig 2) and a cooling air channel (space through which cooling air flows within housing 14 and through gap 13, Fig 2),
a liquid channel (water supply pipe 33, Fig 3),
wherein the liquid channel has an opening (nozzles 34, Fig 2) which is arranged in a portion, which is arranged upstream of the electric motor, of the cooling air channel (Fig 2).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooling air channel as disclosed by Schübeler with the above aforementioned liquid channel as taught by Sawata for the purpose of providing a simple, light, small cooling system for high power density electric motors that avoids the need of heat exchangers or the like (Col 1 Lns 59-61).
(b) Regarding claim 2:
(i) Schübeler as modified by Sawata teaches the impeller machine of claim 1.
(ii) Schübeler as modified by Sawata further teaches wherein the opening of the liquid channel is arranged radially inside the annular motor gap (Sawata: opening located at inlet of cooling air channel, Fig 2; Schübeler: inlet of cooling channel located radially inside the annular motor gap, Fig 2).
(c) Regarding claim 3:
(i) Schübeler as modified by Sawata teaches the impeller machine of claim 1.
(ii) Schübeler as modified by Sawata further teaches wherein radially inside the annular motor gap there is formed a guiding face (Schübeler: there must be some face in order to split the secondary cooling air flow S, Fig 2) along which the liquid which is discharged from the liquid channel is directed to the motor (see rejection of claim 1 above; Schübeler: Fig 2).
(d) Regarding claim 5:
(i) Schübeler as modified by Sawata teaches the impeller machine of claim 1.
(ii) Schübeler further discloses wherein the inlet end of the cooling air channel is arranged in a region in which during operation of the impeller machine a higher pressure is applied than at the outlet end (Par 0020).
(e) Regarding claim 6:
(i) Schübeler as modified by Sawata teaches the impeller machine of claim 1.
(ii) Schübeler further discloses wherein the motor housing is retained by at least one aero stator (stator blade 4, Figs 1-2) relative to the impeller housing and in that the outlet end of the cooling air channel is arranged in a wall of the at least one aero stator stators (Figs 1-2, Par 0020).
(f) Regarding claim 7:
(i) Schübeler as modified by Sawata teaches the impeller machine of claim 1.
(ii) Schübeler as modified by Sawata further teaches a tank (Sawata: tank 31, Fig 2) from which the liquid is supplied to the liquid channel (Sawata: Fig 2).
(g) Regarding claim 13:
(i) Schübeler as modified by Sawata teaches the impeller machine of claim 1.
(ii) Schübeler as modified by Sawata further teaches wherein a covering component (Schübeler: housing 10, Figs 1-2) is arranged behind the motor housing (Schübeler: Figs 1-2), wherein the covering component comprises an inner covering (Schübeler: inside surfaces of housing 10 defining flow channel 8, Figs 1-2) and wherein a portion of the liquid channel is arranged in a hollow space between the inner covering and an outer wall of the covering component (Sawata: liquid channel penetrates housing 14 from an external side of housing 14; when combined with Schübeler, there must be some portion of the liquid channel outside of the flow channel 8 which is located within housing 10, Figs 1-2).
(h) Regarding claim 14:
(i) Schübeler as modified by Sawata teaches the impeller machine of claim 1.
(ii) Schübeler as modified by Sawata further teaches an aircraft (Sawata: Col 1 Lns 52-54), wherein a drive of the aircraft comprises an impeller machine of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
(i) Regarding claim 15:
(i) Schübeler discloses a method for operating an impeller machine (see abstract), wherein:
an air flow (cooling air flow P, Fig 1) is generated with an aero rotor (padd wheel set 2, Fig 1) along an annular space (space between housing 1 and unlabeled impeller housing, Fig 2) which is enclosed between an impeller housing (unlabeled annular structure surrounding housing 1 and connected to stators 4, Fig 2) and a motor housing (housing 1, Figs 1-2), and
wherein an electric motor (“electric motor”, Par 0017) which is arranged in an inner space of the motor housing (Fig 2) is cooled by a cooling air flow being directed through a cooling air channel (flow channel 8, Fig 1; space through which secondary cooling flow S flows, Fig 2) which extends in the inner space of the motor housing (Fig 2) between an inlet end (inlet opening 9 in Fig 1 or mislabeled inlet opening 12 in Fig 2) and an outlet end (outlet opening 7, Fig 2).
(ii) Schübeler does not disclose wherein a liquid is supplied to a portion, which is arranged upstream of the electric motor, of the cooling air channel.
(iii) Sawata is also in the field of impeller machines (see abstract) and teaches wherein a liquid (“water”, see abstract) is supplied to a portion (via water supply pipe 33, Fig 3, and nozzles 34, Fig 2), which is arranged upstream (Fig 2) of an electric motor (100, Fig 2), of a cooling air channel (space through which cooling air flows within housing 14 and through gap 13, Fig 2).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as disclosed by Schübeler with the above aforementioned step of supplying a liquid as taught by Sawata for the purpose of providing a simple, light, small cooling system for high power density electric motors that avoids the need of heat exchangers or the like (Col 1 Lns 59-61).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102014209410 to Schübeler (see Applicant provided translation in the file wrapper) in view of US 11859623 to Sawata in further view of “A theoretical derivation of the Cordier diagram for turbomachines” to Epple.
(a) Regarding claim 4:
(i) Schübeler as modified by Sawata teaches the impeller machine of claim 1.
(ii) Schübeler as modified by Sawata do not teach wherein a speed number of the impeller machine is between 1.8 and 10 and/or in that a diameter number of the impeller machine is between 0.8 and 1.5.
(iii) Epple teaches wherein the speed number and diameter number of a turbomachine determine the turbomachines optimum operating conditions (Introduction and aim of work, Page 354), establishing both numbers are result effective variables. Optimization of routine effective variables requires only ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the speed number and/or the diameter number of the impeller machine as taught by Schübeler as modified by Sawata to be within the ranges claimed through routine optimization of a result effective variable which requires only ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102014209410 to Schübeler (see Applicant provided translation in the file wrapper) in view of US 11859623 to Sawata in further view of US 3100964 to Bevers.
(a) Regarding claim 8:
(i) Schübeler as modified by Sawata teaches the impeller machine of claim 7.
(ii) Schübeler as modified by Sawata does not teach wherein an inner space of the tank is under excess pressure during operation of the impeller machine.
(iii) Bevers is also in the field of impeller machines (propeller P, Fig 1) and teaches a liquid channel (delivery duct 30, Fig 1) supplied by a water tank (tank 25, Fig 1), wherein an inner space of the tank is under excess pressure during operation of the impeller machine (via air bleed 33, conduit 34, and compressed air delivery conduit 31, Fig 1).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tank as taught by the combined teachings of Schübeler as modified by Sawata to be under excess pressure during operation of the impeller machine as taught by Bevers for the purpose of controlling the rate of supply of the water (Col 2 Lns 32-38).
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102014209410 to Schübeler (see Applicant provided translation in the file wrapper) in view of US 11859623 to Sawata in further view of US 3100964 to Bevers in even further view of US 8092153 to Strecker.
(a) Regarding claim 9-11:
(i) Schübeler as modified by Sawata as further modified by Bevers teaches the impeller machine of claim 8.
(ii) Schübeler as modified by Sawata as further modified by Bevers does not teach:
wherein a pressure line extends between the tank and the annular space;
wherein the pressure line extends through an inner space of an aero stator; nor
wherein the pressure line has an inlet opening which is arranged in a front face of the aero stator.
(iii) Strecker is also in the field of impeller machines (see abstract) and teaches:
wherein a pressure line (cooling air passage 32, Fig 2) extends to an annular space (annular bypass air duct 28, Fig 1);
wherein the pressure line extends through an inner space of an aero stator (radial struts 12, Figs 1-2); and
wherein the pressure line has an inlet opening (air scoop 36, Fig 2) which is arranged in a front face of the aero stator (Fig 2).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pressure line as taught by the combined teachings of Schübeler as modified by Sawata as further modified by Bevers to extend to an annular space, through an inner space of an aero stator, and have an inlet as taught by Strecker for the purpose of receiving bypass air flow at a maximum dynamic pressure to be used to cool a component (Col 1 Lns 48).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102014209410 to Schübeler (see Applicant provided translation in the file wrapper) in view of US 11859623 to Sawata in further view of US 8092153 to Strecker.
(a) Regarding claim 12:
(i) Schübeler as modified by Sawata teaches the impeller machine of claim 1.
(ii) Schübeler as modified by Sawata do not teach wherein there is arranged in the liquid channel a valve which, under the control of a control unit, can be switched between an open state and a closed state.
(iii) Strecker is also in the field of impeller machines (see abstract) and teaches a channel (cooling passage 32, Fig 3), wherein there is arranged in the channel a valve (valve 38, Fig 3) which, under the control of a control unit (engine electronic controller 42, Fig 1), can be switched between an open state (Fig 2) and a closed state (Fig 3).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the liquid channel as taught by the combined teachings of Schübeler as modified by Sawata to have a valve as taught by Strecker for the purpose of selectively controlling the flow within the liquid channel (Col 3 Lns 23-24).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Justin A Pruitt whose telephone number is (571)272-8383. The examiner can normally be reached T-F 8:30am - 6:30pm.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JUSTIN A PRUITT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745