Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/720,174

ROTOR FOR AN ELECTRIC MACHINE HAVING A COOLING DUCT IN A POLE SEPARATOR

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jun 14, 2024
Examiner
MANN JR, CHARLIE FRANK
Art Unit
2834
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
VALEO EAUTOMOTIVE GERMANY GMBH
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
49 granted / 73 resolved
-0.9% vs TC avg
Strong +33% interview lift
Without
With
+33.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
89
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
53.8%
+13.8% vs TC avg
§102
26.3%
-13.7% vs TC avg
§112
17.5%
-22.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 73 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant' s communication filed June 14, 2024. In view of this communication, claims 1-20 are now pending in the application. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 14, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Specification The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use. Arrangement of the Specification As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading: (a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION. (b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS. (c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT. (d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. (e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM. (f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. (g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION. (1) Field of the Invention. (2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. (h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION. (i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S). (j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION. (k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet). (l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet). (m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification is missing titles for each of the sections outlined above. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claims 10 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10: “having a rotor as claimed in claim 1” should read “having the rotor as claimed in claim 1”. Claim 20: “having a rotor as claimed in claim 2” should read “having the rotor as claimed in claim 2”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claims 1-7, 9-11, 14-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chernogorski et al. (DE 102018220810 A1, hereafter referred to as Chernogorski). Regarding Claim 1, Chernogorski discloses (see Figures 1-2) a rotor (10, Page 4, ¶ 1) for an electric machine (Abstract: “The invention relates to a fluid-cooled rotor for an electrical machine”), comprising: a rotor shaft (14, Page 4, ¶ 1), a laminated core (16, Page 4, ¶ 1), which is arranged on the rotor shaft (14, Page 4, ¶ 1) and formed from stacked electrical laminations and which has radially outwardly projecting laminated core protrusions (Annotated Figure 2), rotor windings (15, Page 4, ¶ 1), which are each wound around a laminated core protrusion (Annotated Figure 2), and a pole separator (25, Page 4, ¶ 3) which is arranged between two adjacent laminated core protrusions (Annotated Figure 2) and in which a cooling duct (24, Page 4, ¶ 3) for a coolant runs. PNG media_image1.png 366 510 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 415 402 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 2/1, Chernogorski has been discussed above. Additionally, Chernogorski discloses (see Figure 1 above) that the cooling duct (24, Page 4, ¶ 3) extends from one axial side of the laminated core (16, Page 4, ¶ 1) to the opposite axial side of the laminated core (16, Page 4, ¶ 1). Regarding Claim 3/1, Chernogorski has been discussed above. Additionally, Chernogorski discloses (see Figure 2) that the pole separator (25, Page 4, ¶ 3) has an inner section (Annotated Figure 2), which is arranged between two adjacent rotor windings (15, Page 4, ¶ 1), and an outer section (Annotated Figure 2), which is arranged radially outside the two rotor windings (15, Page 4, ¶ 1). PNG media_image3.png 352 508 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 4/3/1, Chernogorski has been discussed above. Additionally, Chernogorski discloses (see Figure 2 above) that the inner section (Annotated Figure 2) is embedded in a potting compound with which the two rotor windings (15, Page 4, ¶ 1) are potted (Page 3, ¶ 5: “In one embodiment, the space between the pole pieces of the laminated core and the air cylinder is filled with a casting compound”). Regarding Claim 5/3/1, Chernogorski has been discussed above. Additionally, Chernogorski discloses (see Figure 2 above) that the cooling duct (24, Page 4, ¶ 3) runs in the inner section (Annotated Figure 2) and/or the outer section. Regarding Claim 6/1, Chernogorski has been discussed above. Additionally, Chernogorski discloses (see Figure 2 above) that the cooling duct (24, Page 4, ¶ 3) has a circular or Y-shaped cross section. Regarding Claim 7/1, Chernogorski has been discussed above. Additionally, Chernogorski discloses (see Figure 1 above) that the cooling duct (24, Page 4, ¶ 3) opens in an end cap (13, Page 4, ¶ 1) of the rotor (10, Page 4, ¶ 1). Regarding Claim 9/1, Chernogorski has been discussed above. Additionally, Chernogorski discloses (see Figure 2 above) having a plurality of pole separators (25, Page 4, ¶ 3) corresponding to the pole separator (25, Page 4, ¶ 3), which are each arranged between two adjacent laminated core protrusions (Annotated Figure 2) of the laminated core (16, Page 4, ¶ 1). Regarding Claim 10/1, Chernogorski has been discussed above. Additionally, Chernogorski discloses an electric machine, having a rotor (10, Page 4, ¶ 1) as claimed in claim 1 and a stator surrounding the rotor (10, Page 4, ¶ 1) (Page 3, ¶ 7: “The invention also relates to an externally excited synchronous machine (FSM) which comprises a stator and a rotor according to the invention arranged therein rotatable about an axis of rotation relative to the stator.”). Regarding Claim 11/10/1, Chernogorski has been discussed above. Additionally, Chernogorski discloses a vehicle having an electric machine as claimed in claim 10, which is provided to drive the vehicle. (Page 2, ¶ 7: “Losses mean heat, which has to be dissipated again, but also energy consumption, which has a negative effect on the range, for example in electrically powered vehicles.”) (Page 2, ¶ 7 – Page 3, ¶ 1: “Examples include air, water-glycol mixtures, gear oils such as MTF (Manual Transmission Fluid - gear oil for manual gearbox) or ATF (Automatic Transmission Fluid - gear oil for automatic gearbox) without special measures to protect the stator winding or other axle components. In one embodiment, the cooling fluid is a water-glycol mixture. In another embodiment, the cooling fluid is a transmission oil.”) Regarding Claim 14/2/1, Chernogorski has been discussed above. Additionally, Chernogorski discloses (see Figure 2) that the pole separator (25, Page 4, ¶ 3) has an inner section (Annotated Figure 2), which is arranged between two adjacent rotor windings (15, Page 4, ¶ 1), and an outer section (Annotated Figure 2), which is arranged radially outside the two rotor windings (15, Page 4, ¶ 1). PNG media_image4.png 352 508 media_image4.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 15/4/3/1, Chernogorski has been discussed above. Additionally, Chernogorski discloses (see Figure 2 above) that the cooling duct (24, Page 4, ¶ 3) runs in the inner section (Annotated Figure 2) and/or the outer section. Regarding Claim 16/2/1, Chernogorski has been discussed above. Additionally, Chernogorski discloses (see Figure 2 above) that the cooling duct (24, Page 4, ¶ 3) has a circular or Y-shaped cross section. Regarding Claim 17/2/1, Chernogorski has been discussed above. Additionally, Chernogorski discloses (see Figure 1) that the cooling duct (24, Page 4, ¶ 3) opens in an end cap (13, Page 4, ¶ 1) of the rotor (10, Page 4, ¶ 1). PNG media_image1.png 366 510 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 19/2/1, Chernogorski has been discussed above. Additionally, Chernogorski discloses (see Figure 2 above) having a plurality of pole separators (25, Page 4, ¶ 3) corresponding to the pole separator (25, Page 4, ¶ 3), which are each arranged between two adjacent laminated core protrusions (Annotated Figure 2) of the laminated core (16, Page 4, ¶ 1). Regarding Claim 20/2/1, Chernogorski has been discussed above. Additionally, Chernogorski discloses an electric machine, having a rotor (10, Page 4, ¶ 1) as claimed in claim 2 and a stator surrounding the rotor (10, Page 4, ¶ 1) (Page 3, ¶ 7: “The invention also relates to an externally excited synchronous machine (FSM) which comprises a stator and a rotor according to the invention arranged therein rotatable about an axis of rotation relative to the stator.”). 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. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernogorski as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Pittard et al. (US 6113024 A, hereafter referred to as Pittard). Regarding Claim 8/1, Chernogorski has been discussed above. Chernogorski does not disclose that the pole separator has a plurality of cooling ducts corresponding to the cooling duct. However, Pittard, in the same field of technology, does disclose (see Figure 3) wherein the pole separator (22, C4L14) has a plurality of cooling ducts (Annotated Figure 3) corresponding to the cooling duct (Annotated Figure 3) (C1L26-28: “A second technique, which is more commonly utilized in designs that have conduction cooling through their so-called cooling wedges,”). PNG media_image5.png 540 474 media_image5.png Greyscale It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the rotor disclosed by Chernogorski such that the pole separator has a plurality of cooling ducts corresponding to the cooling duct, as disclosed by Pittard, in order to cool the motor during high-speed rotation (C1L15-19: “The present invention relates to winding wedge retention, and more particularly, to a coil winding retention scheme within a generator rotor to maintain coil form during high speed rotation.”) (C1L26-28: “A second technique, which is more commonly utilized in designs that have conduction cooling through their so-called cooling wedges,”). Claim 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernogorski as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Herrmann et al. (US 6113024 A, hereafter referred to as Herrmann). Regarding Claim 12/1, Chernogorski has been discussed above. Additionally, Chernogorski discloses (see Figures 1-2) a method for producing a rotor (10, Page 4, ¶ 1) as claimed in claim 1, having the following steps: arranging the laminated core (16, Page 4, ¶ 1) on the rotor shaft (14, Page 4, ¶ 1), winding the rotor windings (15, Page 4, ¶ 1) around the laminated core protrusions (Annotated Figure 2) of the laminated core (16, Page 4, ¶ 1), inserting the pole separator (25, Page 4, ¶ 3) between two adjacent laminated core protrusions (Annotated Figure 2) of the laminated core (16, Page 4, ¶ 1), and potting the rotor windings (15, Page 4, ¶ 1) with a potting compound (25, Page 4, ¶ 3). PNG media_image1.png 366 510 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 415 402 media_image2.png Greyscale Chernogorski does not disclose that the pole separator is embedded in the potting compound. However, Herrmann, in the same field of technology, does disclose (see Figure 3) that the pole separator (230, Page 5, ¶ 7) is embedded in the potting compound (Page 5, ¶ 8: “The displacement bodies are preferred 230 in this case designed (and arranged) in such a way that they extend up to the outer circumferential surface of the rotor body 110 extend so that the sleeve 210 or bandage directly on the displacement bodies 230 can apply. After the injection molding and hardening of the casting compound M, the sleeve can optionally 210 be removed again.”). PNG media_image6.png 384 294 media_image6.png Greyscale It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by Chernogorski such that that the pole separator is embedded in the potting compound, as disclosed by Herrmann, in order to secure the rotor winding during the potting process (Page 5, ¶ 7: “The radial sealing of the rotor slots 115 but can also be done with the help of displacement bodies 230 take place, which in the rotor slots 115 can be used as described above.”). Regarding Claim 13/12/1, Chernogorski in view of Hermann has been discussed above. Additionally, Hermann discloses (see Figure 1) that the rotor (100, Page 4, ¶ 7) is positioned for the potting such that its axis of rotation runs vertically, and the potting compound is introduced through a filling opening (Annotated Figure 1) in an end cap (221, Page 5, ¶ 2), wherein the end cap preferably also has a venting opening (Annotated Figure 1). PNG media_image7.png 408 692 media_image7.png Greyscale Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernogorski as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Pittard et al. (US 6113024 A, hereafter referred to as Pittard). Regarding Claim 18/2/1, Chernogorski has been discussed above. Chernogorski does not disclose that the pole separator has a plurality of cooling ducts corresponding to the cooling duct. However, Pittard, in the same field of technology, does disclose (see Figure 3) that the pole separator (22, C4L14) has a plurality of cooling ducts (Annotated Figure 3) corresponding to the cooling duct (Annotated Figure 3) (C1L26-28: “A second technique, which is more commonly utilized in designs that have conduction cooling through their so-called cooling wedges,”). PNG media_image5.png 540 474 media_image5.png Greyscale It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the rotor disclosed by Chernogorski such that the pole separator has a plurality of cooling ducts corresponding to the cooling duct, as disclosed by Pittard, in order to cool the motor during high-speed rotation (C1L15-19: “The present invention relates to winding wedge retention, and more particularly, to a coil winding retention scheme within a generator rotor to maintain coil form during high speed rotation.”) (C1L26-28: “A second technique, which is more commonly utilized in designs that have conduction cooling through their so-called cooling wedges,”). Citation of Pertinent Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Huang et al. (US 20190348894 A1) discloses relevant prior art in Figure 3. Park et al. (US 20170353092 A1) discloses relevant prior art in Figures 4-5. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLIE FRANK MANN whose telephone number is (703)756-1275. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM - 4:30PM PST. 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, Oluseye 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. /C.F.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2834 /ALEXANDER A SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 14, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597814
STATOR, MOTOR, POWER ASSEMBLY, AND ELECTRIC VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592591
ELECTRIC MOTOR WITH INSULATED PERMANENT MAGNET
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592619
ROTOR SHAFT-MOUNTED VAPOR CHAMBERS AND HEAT PIPES WITH ENDCAP HEAT SINKS FOR ELECTRIC MACHINES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587055
DRIVE DEVICE HAVING A BRUSHLESS ELECTRIC MOTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580439
MOTOR INCLUDING A JOINT INCLUDING FIRST AND SECOND STEP PARTS FOR IMPROVING ROBUSTNESS AGAINST AN AXIAL LOAD
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
67%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+33.0%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 73 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