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 Amendment
Regarding rejections of the claims under §§102 and 103:
Claims 1-6 were rejected as being anticipated by Hens. Claim 7 was rejected as being obvious over Hens in view of Tatematsu. Claims 8-9 and 11-19 were rejected as being obvious over Hens in view of Kang. Claim 10 was rejected as being obvious over Hens in view of Kang and Franke. Claim 20 was rejected as being obvious over Hens in view of Kang and Burkhardt. The Applicant amended claims 1, 3, 7-8, and 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 5/18/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 16 under 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Chinese Patent No. 110932475 to Sun et al.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10, filed 5/18/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 7 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Chinese Patent No. 208986712 to Liang et al.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German Patent No. 10 2021 119 197 to Hens (provided by Applicant on 9/11/2024) in view of Chinese Patent No. 110932475 to Sun et al. (hereinafter Sun).
Regarding claim 1, Hens teaches an electric machine (FIG. 1, 100), comprising:
a shaft (FIG. 1, 22) configured to rotate about an axis of rotation;
a rotor (FIG. 1, 20) coupled to the shaft and a stator (FIG. 1, 10), wherein the rotor comprises a first axial end face (FIG. 1, 24), a second axial end face (FIG. 1, 26), a lateral surface (FIG. 1, portion of 23 radially facing 11), and at least two cooling channels (FIG. 1, 30), wherein the at least two cooling channels each extend into the rotor from an injection opening (FIG. 1, 34) in the first axial end face; and
at least one injection nozzle (FIG. 1, 40) configured to spray a fluid (FIG. 1, 50; Paragraph [0031]) into the injection opening of the at least two cooling channels when the rotor is rotating.
Hens does not teach each of the injection openings being pocket-shaped, with webs between the injection openings, wherein each of the injection openings is wider than each of the webs.
However, Sun teaches rotor coolant openings (FIG. 2, 13) being pocket-shaped, with webs between the injection openings, wherein each of the injection openings are wider than each of the webs (FIG. 2, spaces between injection openings 13, 14, 15 are smaller than injection openings themselves).
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 the electric machine of Hens with the injection openings of Sun to increase the coolant throughput and cooling capacity of the machine.
Regarding claim 2, Hens in view of Sun teaches the electric machine of claim 1, wherein Hens further teaches the at least two cooling channels being linear (FIG. 1, 30).
Regarding claim 3, Hens in view of Sun teaches the electric machine of claim 1, wherein a radial distance between the at least two cooling channels and the axis of rotation (Hens FIG. 3a; 430) is greater than or equal to a radial distance between the injection opening and the axis of rotation (Hens FIG. 3a; 434), and each of the injection openings has an edge extending radially from an outside to inside of the rotor (Sun FIG. 2, 13).
Regarding claim 4, Hens in view of Sun teaches the electric machine of claim 1, wherein Hens further teaches the at least one injection nozzle comprising an injection direction parallel to the axis of rotation (FIG. 1, 50).
Regarding claim 5, Hens in view of Sun teaches the electric machine of claim 1, wherein Hens further teaches the at least one injection nozzle comprising an injection direction angled to the axis of rotation (FIG. 3a, 440).
Regarding claim 6, Hens in view of Sun teaches the electric machine of claim 1, wherein Hens further teaches the at least two cooling channels comprising an outlet (FIG. 1, 36) arranged in the second axial end face.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hens in view of Sun and in further view of Chinese Patent No. 208986712 to Liang et al. (hereinafter Liang).
Regarding claim 7, Hens in view of Sun teaches the electric machine of claim 6.
Hens in view of Sun does not teach the outlet comprising a bead formed around the outlet opening such that a rotor surface region adjacent to the outlet is raised.
However, Liang teaches a coolant outlet (FIG. 7, a) comprising a bead (FIG. 7, 41) formed around the outlet opening such that a rotor surface region adjacent to the outlet is raised.
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 the electric machine of Hens in view of Sun with the outlet of Liang to better direct the cooling fluid.
Claims 8-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hens in view of Sun and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0061495 to Kang et al. (hereinafter Kang).
Regarding claim 8, Hens teaches a system, comprising:
an electric machine (FIG. 1, 100) comprising a rotor (FIG. 1, 20) configured to rotate about an axis of rotation;
a plurality of cooling channels (FIG. 1, 30) extending through at least a portion of the rotor;
a plurality of injection openings (FIG. 1, 34), each of the plurality of cooling channels extends into the rotor from an injection opening of the plurality of injection openings (FIG. 1, 30); and
a plurality of injection nozzles (FIG. 1, 40; Paragraph [0039]) that are stationary and configured to inject fluid (FIG. 1, 50; Paragraph [0031]).
Hens does not teach a controller with computer-readable instructions stored on memory thereof that when executed cause the controller to:
determine a temperature of the rotor;
determine an imbalance of the rotor; and
inject fluid into the plurality of injection openings via one or more of the plurality of injection nozzles based on the temperature and the imbalance,
wherein each of the injection openings are pocket-shaped, with webs between the injection openings, and wherein each of the injection openings is wider than each of the webs.
However, Sun teaches rotor coolant openings (FIG. 2, 13) being pocket-shaped, with webs between the injection openings, wherein each of the injection openings are wider than each of the webs (FIG. 2, spaces between injection openings 13, 14, 15 are smaller than injection openings themselves).
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 the system of Hens with the injection openings of Sun to increase the coolant throughput and cooling capacity of the machine.
Hens in view of Sun does not teach a controller with computer-readable instructions stored on memory thereof that when executed cause the controller to:
determine a temperature of the rotor;
determine an imbalance of the rotor; and
inject fluid into the plurality of injection openings via one or more of the plurality of injection nozzles based on the temperature and the imbalance.
However, Kang teaches a controller (FIG. 3, 67) with computer-readable instructions stored on memory thereof (Paragraph [0096]) that when executed cause the controller to:
determine a temperature of the rotor (Paragraph [0099]);
determine an imbalance of the rotor (Paragraph [0099]); and
inject fluid via one or more of the plurality of injection nozzles based on the temperature and the imbalance (Paragraph [0106]).
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 the system of Hens in view of Sun with the controller of Kang to provide a more efficient cooling system for the system.
Regarding claim 9, Hens in view of Sun and Kang teaches the system of claim 8, wherein Hens further teaches an injection opening of a cooling channel of the plurality of cooling channels (FIG. 3a, 434) is radially closer to the axis of rotation than an outlet (FIG. 3a, 436) of the cooling channel.
Regarding claim 11, Hens in view of Sun and Kang teaches the system of claim 8, wherein Hens further teaches the plurality of cooling channels expelling fluid radially outward toward a stator (FIG. 1, 54).
Regarding claim 12, Hens in view of Sun and Kang teaches the system of claim 8, wherein Kang further teaches the instructions further causing the controller to inject an equal amount of fluid via each of the plurality of injection nozzles when only the temperature of the rotor is greater than a threshold temperature (Paragraph [0098]; [0106]).
Regarding claim 13, Hens in view of Sun and Kang teaches the system of claim 8, wherein Kang further teaches the instructions further causing the controller to inject different amounts of fluid via two or more of the plurality of injection nozzles when only the imbalance of the rotor is determined (Paragraph [0106]-[0108]).
Regarding claim 14, Hens in view of Sun and Kang teaches the system of claim 8, wherein Kang further teaches the instructions further causing the controller to inject different amounts of fluid via the plurality of injection nozzles when each of the temperature of the rotor is greater than a threshold temperature and the imbalance of the rotor is determined (Paragraph [0098]; [0106]-[0108]).
Regarding claim 15, Hens in view of Sun and Kang teaches the system of claim 8, wherein Hens further teaches the plurality of injection nozzles being arranged at an angle (FIG. 3a, 440).
Regarding claim 16, Hens teaches a system, comprising:
an electric machine (FIG. 1, 100) comprising a rotor (FIG. 1, 20) configured to rotate about an axis of rotation;
a plurality of cooling channels (FIG. 1, 30) extending through a portion of the rotor, wherein each of the plurality of cooling channels comprises an inlet (FIG. 1, 34) arranged in an axial surface of the rotor; and
a plurality of injection nozzles (FIG. 1, 40; Paragraph [0039]) configured to inject fluid toward the inlet (FIG. 1, 50; Paragraph [0031]).
Hens does not teach a controller with computer-readable instructions stored on memory thereof that when executed cause the controller to:
operate the plurality of injection nozzles to correct an imbalance of the rotor,
wherein the inlet is pocket-shaped, with webs between the inlets, and wherein the inlet of each of the plurality of cooling channels is wider than each of the webs.
However, Sun teaches rotor coolant openings (FIG. 2, 13) being pocket-shaped, with webs between the injection openings, wherein each of the injection openings are wider than each of the webs (FIG. 2, spaces between injection openings 13, 14, 15 are smaller than injection openings themselves).
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 the system of Hens with the injection openings of Sun to increase the coolant throughput and cooling capacity of the machine.
Hens in view of Sun does not teach a controller with computer-readable instructions stored on memory thereof that when executed cause the controller to:
operate the plurality of injection nozzles to correct an imbalance of the rotor.
However, Kang teaches a computer (FIG. 3, 67) with computer-readable instructions stored on memory thereof (Paragraph [0096]) that when executed cause the controller to:
operate the plurality of injection nozzles to correct an imbalance of the rotor (Paragraph [0099]; [0106]).
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 the system of Hens in view of Sun with the controller of Kang to provide a more efficient cooling system for the system.
Regarding claim 17, Hens in view of Sun and Kang teaches the system of claim 16, wherein Kang further teaches the instructions further causing the controller to operate the plurality of injection nozzles to decrease a temperature of the rotor (Paragraph [0106]-[0108]).
Regarding claim 18, Hens in view of Sun and Kang teaches the system of claim 16, wherein Hens further teaches the plurality of cooling channels being non-parallel to the axis of rotation (FIG. 3a, 430).
Regarding claim 19, Hens in view of Sun and Kang teaches the system of claim 16, wherein Hens further teaches each of the plurality of cooling channels comprising an outlet (FIG. 1, 36) arranged in a second axial surface opposite the axial surface of the rotor.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hens in view of Sun and Kang and in further view of WIPO Publication No. 2009/129882 to Franke et al. (hereinafter Franke).
Regarding claim 10, Hens in view of Sun and Kang teaches the system of claim 8.
Hens in view of Sun and Kang does not teach the plurality of cooling channels comprising a bend.
However, Franke teaches a rotor with a plurality of cooling channels comprising a bend (FIG. 5; 48, 49).
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 the system of Hens in view of Sun and Kang with the bend of Franke to more evenly cool the rotor.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hens in view of Sun and Kang and in further view of German Patent No. 10 2015 223 073 to Burkhardt et al. (hereinafter Burkhardt).
Regarding claim 20, Hens in view of Sun and Kang teaches the system of claim 16.
Hens in view of Sun and Kang does not teach each of the plurality of cooling channels comprising an outlet arranged in a radial surface normal to the axial surface.
However, Burkhardt teaches a cooling channel (FIG. 1, 40) comprising an outlet (FIG. 1, 42) arranged in a radial surface normal to the axial surface.
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 the system of Hens in view of Sun and Kang with the outlets of Burkhardt to more evenly cool the stator.
Conclusion
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 JOSHUA KIEL MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 7:00pm ET.
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.
/JOSHUA KIEL M RODRIGUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights