Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/719,592

STATOR FOR AN ELECTRIC MACHINE HAVING STATOR SLOTS FOR A STATOR WINDING, IT BEING POSSIBLE FOR A COOLING FLUID TO FLOW THROUGH AT LEAST ONE OF THE STATOR SLOTS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 13, 2024
Examiner
TRUONG, THOMAS
Art Unit
2834
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Schaeffler Technologies AG & Co. Kg
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
920 granted / 1260 resolved
+5.0% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
1301
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
50.2%
+10.2% vs TC avg
§102
23.4%
-16.6% vs TC avg
§112
22.5%
-17.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1260 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claims 1-5, 7, 9-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ooiwa et al. (US 2010/0026132 A1) in view of Leonardi et al. (US 2022/0216743 A1). RE claim 1, Ooiwa teaches a stator 2 (Figs.1, 8) for an electric machine 1, comprising a stator body 22 (Fig.8) with a plurality of stator teeth 26 arranged over a periphery of the stator body 22 in a distributed manner and stator slots 25 formed between the stator teeth 26 and extending in an axial direction through the stator body 22 (Fig.8), a stator winding 23 with a plurality of electrical conductors 231, 232 being arranged in the stator slots 25, and the stator slots 25 along a radial extension thereof having a slot base at a radially outer end thereof and a slot opening at a radially inner end thereof (Fig.8), or the stator slots 25 along the radial extension thereof having a slot base at the radially inner end thereof and a slot opening at the radially outer end thereof, and the electrical conductors 231, 232 of the stator winding 23 having a width (L1) and a height (S1) in cross section, the width (L1) being greater than the height (S1), and the electrical conductors 231, 232 being arranged in the stator slots 25 such that the width (L1) thereof extends in a circumferential direction and the height (S1) thereof extends in the radial direction in the stator slots 25, , wherein at least one of the electrical conductors 231, 232 is arranged in at least one of the stator slots 25 such that at least in sections the width (L1) thereof extends in the radial direction and the height (S1) thereof extends in the circumferential direction in the corresponding stator slot 25 (see Fig.8). While Ooiwa teaches stator being coolant via cooling fluid formed by fan 11, 12 (¶ 35, 60), Ooiwa does not expressively teaches that the cooling fluid being able to flow through at least one of the stator slots. Leonardi evidenced that it is well-known for the cooling fluid being able to flow through at least one of the stator slots 454 (Fig.7), doing so would enhance the heat removal efficiency of winding conductor (¶ 39) 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 Ooiwa by having the cooling fluid being able to flow through at least one of the stator slots, as taught by Leonardi, for the same reasons as discussed above. RE claim 2/1, Ooiwa in view of Leonardi has been discussed above. Ooiwa further teaches at least one of the plurality of the electrical conductors 231, 232 has a substantially rectangular contour in cross section (Fig.8). RE claim 3/1, Ooiwa in view of Leonardi has been discussed above. Ooiwa further teaches at least two of the plurality of the electrical conductors 231a, 231b have a substantially identical contour in cross section (Fig.8). RE claim 4/1, Ooiwa in view of Leonardi has been discussed above. Ooiwa further teaches at least the one of the electrical conductors 231, 232 which is arranged in at least one of the stator slots 25 such that the width (L1) thereof extends in the radial direction and the height (S1) thereof extends in the circumferential direction in the corresponding stator slot 25 has a contour (twist) that changes over the axial extension thereof through the stator slot (see Fig.10). RE claim 5/4, Ooiwa in view of Leonardi has been discussed above. Ooiwa further teaches the contour that changes over the axial extension through the stator slot 25 is caused by a torsion of the electrical conductor about a longitudinal axis thereof (Fig.10 and ¶ 90). RE claim 7/1, Ooiwa in view of Leonardi has been discussed above. Ooiwa further teaches the electrical conductors 231, 232 have insulation 24 on the outer lateral surfaces thereof (Fig.4). RE claim 9/1, Ooiwa in view of Leonardi has been discussed above. Ooiwa further teaches a plurality of the stator slots 25 the electrical conductors are arranged in a substantially identical manner (Fig.4). RE claim 10/1, Ooiwa in view of Leonardi has been discussed above. Ooiwa further teaches an even number of a first group of electrical conductors 231a, 232a is arranged in a plurality of the stator slots such that the width (L1, L2) thereof extends in each case in the radial direction and the height (S1, S2) thereof extends in each case in the circumferential direction in the corresponding stator slot 25, and an even number of a second group of electrical conductors 231b, 232b is arranged in said plurality of stator slots such that the width (L1, L2) thereof extends in each case in the circumferential direction and the height S1, S2) thereof extends in each case in the radial direction in the stator slots 25 (Fig.8). RE claim 11/1, Ooiwa in view of Leonardi has been discussed above. Ooiwa further teaches the stator winding 23 is configured as a hairpin winding (230) (Fig.4). RE claim 12/11, Ooiwa in view of Leonardi has been discussed above. Ooiwa further teaches at least one hairpin of the hairpin winding 230 has a first electrical conductor 231 and a second electrical conductor 232 parallel to the first electrical conductor with substantially identical cross-sectional contours (Fig.4), wherein the first electrical conductor 231 is rotated with respect to the second electrical conductor 232 at least once by approximately 90° about the longitudinal axis of the first electrical conductor 231 (Fig.4, 5). Claims 13-17, 19 are rejected for the same reason as claims 1-5 and 7. Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ooiwa in view of Leonardi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Drubel (US 2005/0189835 A1). RE claims 8/1 and 20/13, Ooiwa in view of Leonardi has been discussed above. Ooiwa does not teach a ratio of the width to the height of an electrical conductor is between 1.01:1 and 1.5:1. Drubel teaches a ratio of the width to the height of an electrical conductor is between 1.01:1 and 1.5:1 (¶ 12). The use of such upright conductors prevents, inter alia, the problems which occur with conductors located in the slots of bending of the conductors under the influence of centrifugal forces (¶ 12). 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 Ooiwa in view of Leonardi by having a ratio of the width to the height of an electrical conductor is between 1.01:1 and 1.5:1, as taught by Drubel, for the same reasons as discussed above. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 6 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. RE claims 6/1 and 18/13, the prior-art does not teach, inter alia, at least the one of the electrical conductors which is arranged in at least one of the stator slots such that the width extends in the radial direction and the height thereof extends in the circumferential direction in the corresponding stator slot is surrounded in the radial direction by electrical conductors, the width of each of which extends in the circumferential direction and the height of each of which extends in the radial direction in the stator slots. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM 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, Seye Iwarere can be reached at (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. /THOMAS TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 13, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592610
Flywheel Energy Storage Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587045
MOTOR AND CONTROL DEVICE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587050
FLUX CONCENTRATE TYPE ROTOR HAVING ARC TYPE PERMANENT MAGNETS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587051
PERMANENT-MAGNET ROTOR RESISTANT TO THERMAL EXPANSION AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580435
SELECTIVE PERMEABILITY ROTOR SLEEVE FOR INTERIOR PERMANENT MAGNET MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+16.2%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1260 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month