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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-8, 10, 14-15 & 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roda (WO 2026/015061A1) in view of Siepker (US 2023/0179051).
Regarding Claim 1, Roda discloses a flow insert, comprising:
a) an inner core [130] formed of a first material [aluminum] (FIG. 1A-1B, Page 5, Lines 20-25; The rotor insert 130 may be made in plastic or in metal such as aluminum in different embodiments); and
an outer shell [150], where the outer shell is overmolded [as shown FIG. 1A] over the inner core [130], and where the outer shell comprises flow channels [150 are annular gaps] (FIG. 1A, Claim 1; an annular gap (150) configured to guide a coolant is provided between an inside of the rotor core (140)).
Roda is not explicit to disclose that the “outer shell [150] formed of a second material different from the first material”.
However, Roda also discloses the inner core [130] & the outer shell [150] as two different components of. Moreover, on page 2, lines 27-28 discloses “The increased cooling enabled by the provided solution also saves costs as materials with lower resistance to high temperatures than in previously known solutions, i.e. cheaper material could be used which saves costs”.
Siepker teaches “the outer shell [14] formed of a second material different [plastic] from the first material [“first material” from shaft 3 where the shaft is not disclosed as plastic compared to the laminated core 2]” (FIG. 3, ¶ [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to incorporate Siepker teachings. One would be motivated to do so to reduce cost (refer to previous paragraphs).
Regarding Claim 2, Roda in view Siepker disclose the flow insert of claim 1 [see rejected Claim 1],
Roda further discloses wherein the first material is aluminum (refer to element “a” above).
Regarding Claim 6, Roda in view Siepker disclose the flow insert of claim 1 [see rejected Claim 1],
Roda further discloses wherein there is no gap between internal walls of the outer shell [150] and an exterior surface of the inner core [130] (FIG. 1a shows the recited claim).
Regarding Claim 7, Roda in view Siepker disclose the flow insert of claim 1 [see rejected Claim 1],
Roda further discloses wherein the flow insert comprises a recess [D2 shows the recess] that extends from a second end [by 120] of the flow insert along a central axis [D1] of the flow insert for a first length of the flow insert (FIG. 1A-1B).
Regarding Claim 8, Roda in view Siepker disclose the flow insert of claim 1 [see rejected Claim 1],
Roda further discloses wherein the outer shell [150] is injection molded over the inner core [130] (FIG. 1A).
Regarding Claim 10, Roda in view Siepker disclose the flow insert of claim 1 [see rejected Claim 1],
Roda further discloses wherein the outer shell [150] is formed of a body piece [135a-135b] and a cap piece [140] that are fixedly coupled together (FIG. 1A).
Regarding Claim 14, Roda discloses a rotor shaft assembly, comprising:
a shaft [140] (FIG. 1A-1B);
a shaft end cap [135a or 135b] coupled to the shaft [140] (FIG. 1A-1B); and
a flow insert [130] positioned in a cavity shaped [130 is “cavity shaped”] by the shaft [140] and the shaft end cap [135a or 135b] (FIG. 1A-1B),
where the flow insert [130] is a composite, an inner core [130] formed of a first material [aluminum] and an outer shell [150], where the outer shell [150] is overmolded over the inner core, and where the outer shell comprises flow channels (FIG. 1A-1B, refer to rejected Claim 1).
Roda is not explicit to disclose that the “the flow insert [130] is a composite, two-material insert comprising an inner core [130] formed of a first material and an outer shell [150] formed from a second material that is different from the first material”.
However, Roda also discloses the inner core [130] & the outer shell [150] as two different components of. Moreover, on page 2, lines 27-28 discloses “The increased cooling enabled by the provided solution also saves costs as materials with lower resistance to high temperatures than in previously known solutions, i.e. cheaper material could be used which saves costs”.
Siepker teaches “the flow insert is a composite, two-material insert comprising an inner core formed of a first material and an outer shell formed from a second material that is different from the first material” (refer to rejected Claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to incorporate Siepker teachings. One would be motivated to do so to reduce cost (refer to previous paragraphs).
Regarding Claim 15, Roda in view Siepker disclose the rotor shaft assembly of claim 14 [see rejected Claim 14], further comprising:
Roda further discloses
a recess that extends from a second end of the flow insert along a central axis of the rotor shaft assembly for a first length of the flow insert (refer to rejected Claim 7);
an outlet [right side 120] of the shaft at a second end of the rotor shaft assembly, where an opening of the recess and the outlet of the shaft are axially aligned (FIG. 1A-1B).
Regarding Claim 18, Roda in view Siepker disclose the rotor shaft assembly of claim 14 [see rejected Claim 14],
Roda further discloses wherein the shaft end cap [135a or 135b] further comprises at least one angular flow channel [120 are “flow channels] that extends from an external surface [surface of 110] of the shaft end cap, at a non-zero angle, towards a second end of the shaft end cap and a central axis of the shaft end cap (FIG. 1A-1B).
Regarding Claim 19, Roda discloses a motor assembly, comprising:
a stator [160] (FIG. 1A-1B);
a rotor [110] surrounded by the stator [160] (FIG. 1A-1B);
a shaft [140] at least partially surrounded by the rotor [110] (FIG. 1A-1B),
wherein the shaft [140] comprises a flow insert arranged therein, the flow insert comprising an inner core [130] formed of a first material [aluminum] and an outer shell [150] (FIG. 1A-1B, refer to rejected Claim 1),
where the outer shell [150] is overmolded over the inner core, and where the outer shell comprises flow channels (FIG. 1A-1B, refer to rejected Claim 1); and
a shaft end cap [135a, 135b] coupled to the shaft [140] to form a cavity in which the flow insert is arranged (FIG. 1A-1B, refer to rejected Claim 1).
Roda is not explicit to disclose that the “outer shell [150] formed of a second material different from the first material”.
Siepker teaches “the flow insert is a composite, two-material insert comprising an inner core formed of a first material and an outer shell formed from a second material that is different from the first material” (refer to rejected Claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to incorporate Siepker teachings. One would be motivated to do so to reduce cost (refer to previous paragraphs).
Regarding Claim 20, Roda in view Siepker disclose the motor assembly of claim 19 [see rejected Claim 19],
Roda further disclose wherein the flow channels of the flow insert are configured to guide oil flow from an inlet of the shaft end cap to an internal wall of the shaft and to an outlet of the shaft (Claim 1; such that an annular gap (150) configured to guide a coolant is provided between an inside of the rotor core (140)).
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roda (WO 2026/015061A1) in view of Siepker (US 2023/01739051) according to Claim 3 and in further view of Hunstable (US 2021/0067016).
Regarding Claim 3, Roda in view Siepker disclose the flow insert of claim 1 [see rejected Claim 1],
Roda discloses wherein the first material is plastic [Plastic] (FIG. 1A, Page 5, Lines 20-25 The rotor insert 130 may be made in plastic or in metal such as aluminum in different embodiments).
Roda nor Siepker does not disclose wherein the first material is polyether ether ketone (PEEK).
Hunstable teaches wherein the first material is polyether ether ketone (PEEK) (¶[0101]; In certain embodiments, the bobbin 306 may be made from a PEEK material or a glass-reinforced thermoplastic.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Hunstable teachings as the first material to provide high heat performances.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH ORTEGA whose telephone number is (469)295-9083. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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 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.
/JOSEPH ORTEGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights