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 26 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of Yang and Michael do not explicitly disclose “wherein an inner side of the outer wall facing the cavity comprises a plurality of cooling fins that run around in the circumferential direction, and wherein the plurality of cooling fins are spaced apart axially from one another and protrude radially into the cavity.” As previously recited in claim 19, now recited in claim 13. As Michael was cited to teach this limitation, the discussed will be focused on Michael. The main argument is that the cooling fins 41, 42, 43 of Michael are a single structure, not a plurality of fins. However, it is pointed out that 42a and 42b in Fig. 11a of Michael show a plurality of peaks with a concave surface between them. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, these peaks are a plurality of fins. Thus, Michael still teaches claim 13 and, based on the above discussion, new claim 25.
It is admitted that there are structural differences between the cited prior art and the instant invention. For example, at the very least, the two fins of Michael only have one concave side on one side of them: the side between each fin. The plurality of fins of the instant invention appears to have concave sides on both sides, including between each fin. Further, the language in claim 13 “cooling fins that run around” is considerably broad due to the fact, that “run around” is not a particularly technical term. Applicant could consider clarifying this term; however, the fins of Michael certainly extend in the circumferential direction around the rotor. Thus, it appears expanding on claim 25 could be a better path forward. While no decision on patentability can be made without further search and consideration, Applicant is invited to discuss any of this with the examiner, even After Final Rejection.
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 13 and 16-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (“Yang”; US 2020/0350796), in view of Michael (US 2022/0060072).
Regarding claim 13: Yang discloses a rotor shaft (308) for a rotor (303) of an electric machine (Fig. 3) comprising:
a hollow shaft (316) configured to support a rotor core (306) of the rotor and to conduct a cooling fluid in a cavity (via 316, 324) which is formed by way of a tubular outer wall (310);
an inflow region (324) arranged on an end side (322) of the hollow shaft and configured to allow inflow of the cooling fluid into the cavity (paragraph 0030), the inflow region comprising:
a pot-shaped housing having a side wall that runs around in a circumferential direction (circled, circumferential area in the annotated Fig. 3 below); and
a bottom wall that axially covers the side wall (at the label ‘322’),
wherein the bottom wall and at least one first part of the side wall are arranged in the cavity (as shown in Fig. 3), the bottom wall comprising a baffle wall for the cooling fluid to prevent an axial inflow of the cooling fluid into the cavity (the fluid is inherently directed into 324, so the baffle can be the end cap at label ‘322’), and
wherein the at least one first part of the side wall which protrudes into the cavity has at least one radial through opening (324) configured to provide a radial inflow of the cooling fluid into an annular gap that is formed between the side wall and the outer wall in the cavity (as shown in Fig. 3).
Yang does not explicitly disclose wherein an inner side of the outer wall facing the cavity comprises a plurality of cooling fins that run around in the circumferential direction, and wherein the plurality of cooling fins are spaced apart axially from one another and protrude radially into the cavity.
However, Michael discloses wherein an inner side of the outer wall facing the cavity comprises a plurality of cooling fins (42a, 42b, Fig, 11a) that run around in the circumferential direction (shown best in Fig. 11), and
wherein the plurality of cooling fins are spaced apart axially from one another and protrude radially into the cavity (as shown in Fig. 11 and Fig. 11a).
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 inner side of the side wall of Yang to include the fins of Michael in order to better disperse the cooling fluid (paragraph 0096).
PNG
media_image1.png
548
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16: Yang discloses the housing and the hollow shaft are configured in one part or are connected to one another such that they cannot be released without destruction (in this case, they are one part).
Regarding claim 17: Yang discloses the hollow shaft comprises, on end portions of the outer wall that lie axially opposite one another, radial outlet openings (324, paragraph 0030: “ports”, plural) configured to separate the cooling fluid that exits radially from the inflow region and flows axially in a direction of the end portions, into a surrounding region of the rotor (paragraph 0030).
Regarding claim 18: Yang discloses in order to set an end portion-specific fluid quantity that exits into the surrounding region, a number and/or a diameter of first outlet openings of a first one of the end portions and a number and/or a diameter of second outlet openings of a second one of the end portions, but does not explicitly disclose a number and/or a diameter of first outlet openings of a first one of the end portions is different from a number and/or a diameter of second outlet openings of a second one of the end portions.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are discovered in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
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 number and/or diameter of the openings of Yang to be different in order to optimally distribute the fluid.
Regarding claim 19: Yang discloses an inner side of the outer wall, but does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one cooling fin of the plurality of cooling fins is arranged in a radially aligned manner with respect to the at least one through opening of the housing and is configured to adjust a distribution of the cooling fluid that exits from the inflow region and impacts on the inner side of the outer wall in the direction of the end portions which lie axially opposite one another.
However, Michael discloses wherein at least one cooling fin of the plurality of cooling fins (41, 42, 43) is arranged in a radially aligned manner with respect to the at least one through opening of the housing (Fig. 1a) and is configured to adjust a distribution of the cooling fluid that exits from the inflow region and impacts on the inner side of the outer wall in the direction of the end portions which lie axially opposite one another (shown by the arrows in Fig. 1a).
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 inner side of the side wall of Yang to include the fins of Michael in order to better disperse the cooling fluid (paragraph 0096).
Regarding claim 20: Yang modified by Michael disclose at least one cooling fin, Michael further discloses the at least one cooling fin (4) which is configured to adjust the distribution of the cooling fluid has, with the configuration of a partition for the cooling fluid, a greater radial height (at 42, Fig. 1a) than other cooling fins (121, Fig, 5) of the plurality of cooling fins.
Regarding claim 21: Yang discloses an outer side, facing the cavity, of the side wall, but does not explicitly disclose an outer side, facing the cavity, of the side wall comprises at least one partition element that is arranged at the at least one through opening and is configured to adjust a distribution of the cooling fluid that exits from the inflow region, in the direction of the end portions that lie axially opposite one another.
However, Michael discloses an outer side, facing the cavity, of the side wall comprises at least one partition (4) element that is arranged at the at least one through opening and is configured to adjust a distribution of the cooling fluid that exits from the inflow region (shown by the arrows in Fig. 5), in the direction of the end portions that lie axially opposite one another (as the arrows move to the two ends 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 inner side of the side wall of Yang to include the partitions of Michael in order to better disperse the cooling fluid (paragraph 0096).
Regarding claim 22: Yang modified by Michael discloses at least one partition element, Michael further discloses the at least one partition element has a radial portion (4) configured to distribute the cooling fluid and a deflecting portion (121) that projects axially on both sides from the radial portion and is configured to deflect the cooling fluid in the direction of the axial end portions of the outer wall of the hollow shaft (shown in the embodiment in Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 23: Yang discloses a rotor for an electric machine comprising: a rotor core (306);
a component (304) which generates a magnetic field and is held by the rotor core; and the rotor shaft according to claim 13.
Regarding claim 24: Yang discloses an electric machine for a motor vehicle (paragraph 0003) comprising:
a stator (304); and
the rotor according to claim 23, which is mounted rotatably with regard to the stator (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 25: Yang modified by Michael disclose a plurality of cooling fins, Michael further discloses at least one cooling fin of the plurality of cooling fins has concave sides (between 42a and 42b is a concave surface, so each of 42a and 42b have at least one concave side).
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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang and Michael, further in view of Gi et al. (“Gi”; US 2017/0133912) and Shirai et al. (“Shirai”; US 2022/0337118).
Regarding claim 14: Yang discloses the inflow region, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the inflow region is arranged at a transmission-side end of the hollow shaft and comprises a coupling region configured to couple to a transmission of a motor vehicle.
However, Gi discloses the inflow region (at 52) is arranged at a transmission-side end of the hollow shaft (via 25) and comprises a coupling region (12).
And, Shirai discloses a coupling region (42) configured to couple to a transmission of a motor vehicle (30, 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 inflow region of Yang to have the coupling region of Gi and the transmission of Shirai in order to provide output power to a transmission to power the motor vehicle.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang and Michael, further in view of Gi.
Regarding claim 15: Yang discloses a second part of the side wall of the housing of the inflow region (right side of 316 in Fig. 3), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the second part projects on the hollow shaft and comprises a bearing seat for a bearing of the electric machine.
However, Gi discloses wherein the second part projects on the hollow shaft and comprises a bearing seat (16, Fig. 1) for a bearing (71) of the electric machine.
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 second part of Yang to include the bearing seat and bearing of Gi in order to reduce the friction during rotation of the shaft.
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