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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that McDowall modified by Taji do not explicitly disclose groove-type recess on lateral regions of the bulkhead. It is admitted that the wedges of Taji are on a stator and not a rotor. However, functionally, they do the same thing as the wedges of the instant invention. As they can function on the rotor of McDowall, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to try them to close the groove of McDowall. Second, the recesses in the wedges of Taji are on the complete lateral side, in the middle of the top and bottom of the wedge. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, as the bulkhead is part of the wedge, the lateral side of the wedge is the same as the lateral side of the bulkhead. Further, though not required for claim 1, Continental teaches a similar recess in the bulkhead of wedge 15 (see the circled regions in the annotated Figure below).
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 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDowall et al. (“McDowall”; US 2005/0212373), in view of Taji et al. (“Taji”; US 5,239,220).
Regarding claim 11: McDowall discloses a sliding cover (100, Fig. 1-6) for a salient-pole rotor (400) of an electric machine, for closing a groove formed between two adjacent salient poles (between 402 and 404, Fig. 5) of the salient-pole rotor, comprising:
a groove closure wedge (100) extending axially and in a circumferential direction (shown in Fig. 5), and configured to close the groove and being supported on pole shoes (506, 508) of the two adjacent salient poles, wherein the groove closure wedge has an internal side facing the groove (towards the center axis) and an external side facing an air gap of the electric machine (towards the radial outside); and
at least one bulkhead (102) disposed on the groove closure wedge (100) and, proceeding from the external side of the groove closure wedge, extends radially (shown Fig. 4) so as to reduce a power loss-increasing axial flow along the sliding cover in the air gap of the electric machine (inherent as the structure is known, this is simply a result).
McDowall does not explicitly disclose on lateral regions which are mutually opposite in the circumferential direction, has groove-type recesses for partially receiving pole shoe regions of the pole shoes that project in the circumferential direction.
However, Taji discloses on lateral regions (at 26, Fig. 1b) which are mutually opposite in the circumferential direction (shown in Fig. 1a), has groove-type recesses (26) for partially receiving pole shoe regions of the pole shoes that project in the circumferential direction (at 21 and 27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lateral regions of McDowall to include the recesses of Taji in order to better mate with the poles.
Regarding claim 12: McDowall discloses a plurality of plate-shaped bulkheads (102) which are disposed so as to be axially spaced apart on the external side of the groove closure wedge (shown best in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14: McDowall discloses the groove closure wedge and the at least one bulkhead are integrally configured (as shown by the integral structure in Fig. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 17: McDowall discloses the groove closure wedges, but does not explicitly disclose on lateral regions which are mutually opposite in the circumferential direction, have connecting elements for pushing together axially with pole shoe regions of the pole shoes that project in the circumferential direction, and for establishing a form-fitting connection between the sliding cover and the pole shoes.
However, Taji discloses on lateral regions (at 26) which are mutually opposite in the circumferential direction, have connecting elements (26) for pushing together axially with pole shoe regions of the pole shoes that project in the circumferential direction (21, 27), and for establishing a form-fitting connection between the sliding cover and the pole shoes (column 2, lines 60-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lateral regions of McDowall to include the connecting elements of Taji in order to better mate with the poles.
Regarding claim 18: McDowall discloses a salient-pole rotor for an electric machine (Fig. 5 and 6), comprising:
magnetic field-generating components for forming a rotor magnetic field (paragraph 0002);
a rotor core having salient poles (402, 404) for holding the magnetic field-generating components; and
at least one sliding cover according to claim 11 (see claim 11).
Regarding claim 20: McDowall discloses an electric machine for a motor vehicle, comprising:
a stator (inherent in electric machine structure); and
a salient-pole rotor according to claim 18 (see claim 18), which is mounted so as to be rotatable relative to the stator (inherent to electric machine structure).
Claims 13 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDowall and Taji, as applied to claim 11 above, further in view of Continental Automotive GmbH (“Continental”; DE 20 2012 003 120 U1, English translation attached).
Regarding claim 13: McDowall discloses the external side of the groove closure wedge is concave (shown best in Fig. 3), but does not explicitly disclose curved so as to be concave.
However, Continental discloses the external side is curved so as to be concave (11, Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the groove closure to be curved concave in order to better hold the windings.
Regarding claim 21: McDowall discloses the groove closure wedge, but does not explicitly disclose a space exists between lateral edges of the lateral regions of the at least one bulkhead and the external side of the groove closure wedge.
However, Continental discloses a space exists between lateral edges of the lateral regions of the at least one bulkhead and the external side of the groove closure wedge (as shown in the circled region of annotated Fig. 3 below, the location where the arrow leading to number 18 is pointing, note as no ‘space’ is defined in the specification, this ‘space’ is being supported by the figures and is interpreted as a space extending in the radial direction, if this is not the case, further definition is required).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the wedges to include the space of Continental in order to make a thicker, sturdier wedge.
PNG
media_image1.png
482
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22: McDowall discloses the groove closure wedge but does not explicitly disclose a space exists between lateral edges of the lateral regions of the at least one bulkhead and the pole shoe regions.
However, Continental discloses a space exists between lateral edges of the lateral regions of the at least one bulkhead and the pole shoe regions (similar to the rejection above, the but on the pole shoe region side of the wedge).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the wedges to include the space of Continental in order to make a thicker, sturdier wedge.
Regarding claim 23: McDowall discloses at least one bulkhead but does not explicitly disclose the convex curvature of the external periphery of the at least one bulkhead substantially matches a curvature of an external side of the pole shoes so as to form a substantially circular external contour of the salient-pole rotor in a region of the at least one bulkhead.
However, Continental discloses the convex curvature of the external periphery of the at least one bulkhead substantially matches a curvature of an external side of the pole shoes so as to form a substantially circular external contour of the salient-pole rotor in a region of the at least one bulkhead (shown by the curve-shaped annotated line in annotated Fig. 3 above: both the bulkhead portion of the wedge and the pole shoes follow that curve).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the bulkheads of McDowall to have the convex curve of Continental in order to make them have less resistance when rotating.
Claims 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDowall and Taji, as applied to claim 11 above, further in view of Himmelmann (US 2016/0099621).
Regarding claim 15: McDowall discloses an external periphery of the at least one bulkhead that faces the air gap, but does not explicitly disclose the at least one bulkhead is curved so as to be convex.
However, Himmelmann discloses the at least one bulkhead (55, Fig. 5) is curved so as to be convex (as shown in Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the bulkhead of McDowall to be convex, as disclosed by Himmelmann, in order to better fit the geometry of the rotor.
Regarding claim 19: McDowall discloses an external periphery of the at least one bulkhead and an external side of the pole shoes (Fig. 5), but does not explicitly disclose the external periphery forms a substantially circular external contour of the salient-pole rotor.
However, Himmelmann discloses the external periphery of the bulkhead (55) forms a substantially circular external contour of the salient-pole rotor (given the convex shape, see Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the bulkhead of McDowall to be substantially circular, as disclosed by Himmelmann, in order to better fit the geometry of the rotor.
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 SEAN GUGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-5343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00am - 5:00pm 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, T.C. 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.
/SEAN GUGGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights