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 7/8/2026. Amendments made to the claims and the Applicant's remarks have been entered and considered.
Claims 1, 4, 11, 14 have been amended. Claim 13 is cancelled. Claim 8 is withdrawn. Claims 19-20 are newly added.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant's arguments filed 7/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that Bian does not reasonably teach, suggest, or disclose the limitations required by amended claim 1 with "the at least two pole piece segments associated with each stator tooth" being "oriented in a non-contacting manner.". The Action appears to identify Bian's U- shaped plates (12) as the claimed pole piece segments. However, Bian describes those U-shaped plates (12) as being bonded to two circumferential sides of a sector main body (11), with each U-shaped plate (12) having a U-shaped groove (121) for accommodating a stator coil. Bian therefore describes U-shaped plates that form part of a split stator-core construction and that receive the stator coil, not the claimed non- contacting pole piece segments associated with each stator tooth in place of a single pole piece. At minimum, Bian does not clearly and unambiguously disclose that the structures identified by the Action as "pole piece segments" are pole piece segments associated with the same stator tooth and oriented in a non-contacting manner as required by amended claim 1.
This argument is not persuasive because Bian (CN 214900385 U) shows the plates 12 do not contact each other on the tooth 11 see FIG. 6c and para [0052].
The Applicant argued that Hill likewise does not reasonably teach, suggest, or disclose the limitations required by amended claim 1. The Action relies on Hill's pole shoes (12) and figures including Figs. 1, 4, and 5. But Hill's cited structure is materially different from the claimed non-contacting pole piece segments. In the Fig. 4 embodiment, Hill expressly describes the second core part (15) as extending uninterrupted in the circumferential direction over both the grooves (13) and the tooth sections, and as having integrally interconnected segments. A structure that extends uninterrupted and is integrally interconnected is not a disclosure of at least two pole piece segments associated with each stator tooth and oriented in a non-contacting manner, as required by amended claim 1.
This argument is not persuasive because Hill (DE 102004055578 A1) shows the pole shoes 12 do not contact each other across a tooth 5 see FIG. 5 and para [0035],[0045].
The Applicant also argued that, regarding amended claim 11, Bian does not teach or suggest this amended recess limitation. The Action identifies Bian's second notch (123) and third spigot (124) as allegedly corresponding to the claimed fluid-conducting recess. But Bian describes those features as mechanical mating structures that cooperate with corresponding step portions of end covers. Specifically, Bian states that second notches (123) match second step portions (421) so that the stator winding can be prevented from coming off from the side of the integrated end cover, and that third spigot (124) matches third step portions so that the stator winding can be prevented from being separated from the side of the split- type end cover. Bian further states that these mating structures can adjust planar flatness and parallelism, strengthen structural strength, and ensure that the air gap remains within a reasonable range. These disclosures describe mechanical retention and alignment features, not a recess that faces a winding and provides volume in the winding region through which an electrically insulating cooling medium is conducted. Stated differently, Bian's notches/spigots are disclosed as part of an end-cover retention arrangement for preventing stator winding separation. Nothing in the cited portions of Bian describes those structures as conducting fluid, as facing the winding for fluid-flow purposes, or as providing volume in the region of the winding for an electrically insulating cooling medium. The fact that Bian discusses heat dissipation in the context of avoiding or reducing potting sealant does not convert Bian's mechanical notches/spigots into the particular fluid-conducting recess required by amended claim 11. Bian therefore does not anticipate or render obvious the amended recess limitation.
This argument is not persuasive because newly applied Woolmer et al. (US 2015/0364956 A1) shows this feature.
The Applicant also argued that Hill also fails to teach the amended recess limitation of claim 11. The Action appears to rely on Hill's tapered shape or depression (16) as allegedly corresponding to a "recess for conducting a fluid." Hill, however, expressly describes depression (16) as a magnetic-flux-shaping feature. Hill states that the depressions reduce magnetic leakage flux between adjacent magnetic poles and that groove-shaped depressions with wedge-shaped bevels achieve a largely uniform magnetic flux through the pole pieces. Hill therefore discloses a magnetic-field-management feature, not a recess for conducting fluid through the winding region. Hill's own disclosure further confirms that its depression (16) is not the claimed fluid-conducting recess. Hill describes an embodiment in which the groove-shaped depressions of the second core part are filled with a solidified potting compound of low magnetic permeability to increase mechanical stability and reduce risk of breakage. A depression that Hill teaches may be filled with solidified potting compound is not a recess that provides volume in the region of the winding through which an electrically insulating cooling medium is conducted, as required by amended claim 11. The Action's characterization that Hill's tapered shape "leaves the recess" does not address the full language of amended claim 11. Claim 11 does not merely recite a void, depression, taper, or shape change. It requires a recess for conducting a fluid, positioned on a side of the pole piece segment facing the groove, with the recess facing the winding and providing volume in the winding region through which an electrically insulating cooling medium is conducted. Hill's depression (16) is disclosed for magnetic leakage-flux reduction and may be filled with solidified potting compound. Bian's structures (123) and (124) are disclosed for mechanical engagement with end-cover step portions. Neither disclosure reasonably teaches the claimed cooling-medium recess.
This argument is not persuasive because Hill shows chamfers in pole shoes 12 form recesses 16 capable of accommodating a cooling medium FIG. 5 para [0035],[0045]. Some embodiments of Hill do not include the potting compound and are capable of performing the claimed function of “for conducting a fluid” see para [0013].
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “at least one of the pole piece segments includes a tapering region that is located over the part of the one of the stator teeth and tapers towards the groove” recited in new claim 20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The “at least one of the pole piece segments includes a tapering region that is located over the part of the one of the stator teeth and tapers towards the groove” recited in new claim 20 is not shown in the drawings or set forth in the description.
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) 1-3, 6-7, 10, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bian (CN 214900385 U).
As to claim 1, Bian shows (FIG. 1, 6) A stator 1 for an axial flux machine, the stator 1 comprising:
a plurality of stator teeth 11; and
at least two pole piece segments 12 spaced apart from one another are associated with each of the stator teeth 11, wherein the at least two pole piece segments 12 associated with each stator tooth 11 are oriented in a non-contacting manner (the plates 12 do not contact each other para [0052]).
As to claim 2/1, Bian shows (FIG. 1, 6) the pole piece segments 12 associated with each of the stator teeth 11 are arranged such that one of the pole piece segments 12 extends in an azimuthal direction both over a part of the stator tooth 11 and over a part of a groove for stator windings, said groove follows the stator tooth 11 in the azimuthal direction or precedes the stator tooth 11 (para [0052]).
As to claim 3/2/1, Bian shows (FIG. 1, 6, 5c) a recess 123, 124 for conducting a fluid in one of the pole piece segments 12 on a side of the pole piece segment facing the groove (para [0054],[0055]).
As to claim 6/1, Bian shows (FIG. 1, 6) wherein one of the pole piece segments 12 is attached to an associated one of the stator teeth 11.
As to claim 7/6/1, Bian shows (FIG. 1, 4) wherein a rabbet 111 on the stator tooth 11 for receiving a part of the pole piece segment 12.
As to claim 10/1, Bian shows (FIG. 1 and 6) An axial flux machine comprising at least one of the stators 1 according to claim 1 (motor of FIG. 1 has the stator core of FIG. 6 para [0022], [0027]).
As to claim 19/1, Bian shows (FIG. 1 and 6) wherein two of the pole piece segments 12 associated with successive ones of the stator teeth 11 extend in an azimuthal direction over a common groove arranged between the successive ones of the stator teeth 11 and define a gap therebetween, the gap having a gap width measured in the azimuthal direction that is less than a groove width of the common groove measured in the azimuthal direction (the groove width at 121 is greater than the width between the pole piece extensions 123, 124 see FIG. 6c, para [0053], [0054],[0055]).
Claim(s) 1-5, 11, 12, 14, 15, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hill (DE 102004055578 A1).
As to claim 1, Hill shows (FIG. 1, 4, 5) A stator 2 for an axial flux machine, the stator 2 comprising:
a plurality of stator teeth 5; and
at least two pole piece segments 12 spaced apart from one another are associated with each of the stator teeth 5, wherein the at least two pole piece segments 12 associated with each stator tooth 5 are oriented in a non-contacting manner (the pole shoes 12 do not contact each other see FIG. 5 and para [0035],[0045]).
As to claim 2/1, Hill shows (FIG. 1, 4, 5) the pole piece segments 12 associated with each of the stator teeth 5 are arranged such that one of the pole piece segments 12 extends in an azimuthal direction both over a part of the stator tooth 5 and over a part of a groove 13 for stator windings, said groove 13 follows the stator tooth 5 in the azimuthal direction or precedes the stator tooth 5.
As to claim 3/2/1, Hill shows (FIG. 11, 4, 5) a recess for conducting a fluid in one of the pole piece segments 12 on a side of the pole piece segment 12 facing the groove 13 (the tapered shape leaves the recess).
As to claim 4/1, Hill shows (FIG. 11, 4, 5) the one of the pole piece segments 12 tapers towards the groove 13.
As to claim 5/1, Hill shows (FIG. 1, 4, 5) the pole piece segments 12, which are associated with successive ones of the stator teeth 5, are connected to one another (FIG. 4 the pole piece segments 12 stretch across each tooth 5).
As to claim 11, Hill shows (FIG. 1, 4, 5) A stator 2 for an axial flux machine, the stator 2 comprising:
a stator body including a plurality of stator teeth 5, each of the stator teeth 5 having a rotor facing end; and
at least two pole piece segments 12 spaced apart from one another connected to the rotor facing end of each of the stator teeth 5;
wherein a recess 16 for conducting a fluid is provided in at least one of the pole piece segments 12 on a side of the pole piece segment facing the groove, the recess 16 faces a winding 4 and provides volume in a region of the winding 4 through which an electrically insulating cooling medium is conducted (chamfers in pole shoes 12 form recesses 16 capable of accommodating a cooling medium FIG. 5 para [0035],[0045]).
As to claim 12/11, Hill shows (FIG. 1, 4, 5) the pole piece segments 12 associated with each of the stator teeth 5 are arranged such that one of the pole piece segments 12 extends in an azimuthal direction both over a part of the stator tooth 5 and over a part of a groove 13 for stator windings, said groove 13 follows the stator tooth 11 in the azimuthal direction or precedes the stator tooth 5.
As to claim 14/11, Hill shows (FIG. 11, 4, 5) the one of the pole piece segments 12 at each of the grooves 13 tapers towards the groove 13.
As to claim 15/11, Hill shows (FIG. 1, 4, 5) the pole piece segments 12, which are associated with successive ones of the stator teeth 5, are connected to one another (FIG. 4 the pole piece segments 12 stretch across each tooth 5).
As to claim 20, Hill shows (FIG. 1, 4, 5) A stator 2 for an axial flux machine, the stator 2 comprising:
a stator body including a plurality of stator teeth 5, each of the stator teeth 5 having a rotor facing end; and
at least two pole piece segments 12 spaced apart from one another connected to the rotor facing end of each of the stator teeth 5;
wherein at least one of the pole piece segments 12 extends in an azimuthal direction both over a part of one of the stator teeth 5 and over a part of a groove for stator windings 4, and wherein the at least one of the pole piece segments 12 includes a tapering region that is located over the part of the one of the stator teeth 5 and tapers towards the groove (FIG. 4 para [0035],[0045]).
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) 11, 12, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bian (CN 214900385 U) in view of Woolmer et al. (US 2015/0364956 A1, hereinafter Woolmer of record).
As to claim 11, Bian shows (FIG. 1, 6) A stator 1 for an axial flux machine, the stator 1 comprising:
a stator body including a plurality of stator teeth 11, each of the stator teeth 11 having a rotor facing end; and
at least two pole piece segments 12 spaced apart from one another connected to the rotor facing end of each of the stator teeth 11 (para [0052]).
Bian does not show a recess for conducting a fluid is provided in at least one of the pole piece segments on a side of the pole piece segment facing the groove, the recess faces a winding and provides volume in a region of the winding through which an electrically insulating cooling medium is conducted.
Woolmer shows a recess 77 for conducting a fluid is provided in at least one of the pole piece segments 72 on a side of the pole piece segment 72 facing the groove, the recess 77 faces a winding 55 and provides volume in a region of the winding 55 through which an electrically insulating cooling medium is conducted (indents 77 FIG. 3a, para [0040],[0041], cooling air para [0009]).
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 pole piece segments 12 of Bian to have a recess 77 for conducting a fluid is provided in at least one of the pole piece segments 12 on a side of the pole piece segment 12 facing the groove, the recess 77 faces a winding 2 and provides volume in a region of the winding 2 through which an electrically insulating cooling medium is conducted as taught by Woolmer, for the advantageous benefit of decreasing cogging torque as taught by Woolmer (para [0040],[0041]).
As to claim 12/11, Bian shows (FIG. 1, 6) the pole piece segments 12 associated with each of the stator teeth 11 are arranged such that one of the pole piece segments 12 extends in an azimuthal direction both over a part of the stator tooth 11 and over a part of a groove for stator windings, said groove follows the stator tooth 11 in the azimuthal direction or precedes the stator tooth 11 (para [0052]).
As to claim 16/11, Bian shows (FIG. 1, 6, 5c) the pole piece segments 12 extend radially from an inner periphery of the stator 1 to an outer periphery of the stator 1.
As to claim 17/11, Bian shows (FIG. 1, 4) wherein a rabbet 111 on each of the stator teeth 11 for receiving a part of the respective pole piece segment 12.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bian (CN 214900385 U) in view of Kaneko et al. (US 2007/0018520 A1, hereinafter Kaneko).
As to claims 9/1 and 18/11, Bian was discussed above with respect to claim 1 and 11 except for pole piece segments of the stator differ in size.
Kaneko shows (FIG. 8) pole piece segments 491, 492 of the stator differ in size (para [0033] to [0035]).
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 pole piece segments 12 of Bian to have pole piece segments 12 of the stator 1 differ in size as taught by Kaneko, for the advantageous benefit of decreasing cogging torque as taught by Kaneko (para [0035]).
Conclusion
The 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