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 12, 2026. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed: claims 1-10 were previously pending; claim 2 was cancelled and claims 11-16 were added by amendment; and thus, claims 1 and 3-16 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 12, 2026 have been fully considered.
The Applicant's first point (page 6-9 of Remarks) argues that, “the at least one intermediate opening is further configured to allow the escaping coolant to escape at a first angle to the radial direction of the rotor,” is shown is the drawings. While the specification clearly outlines and teaches how the star disk 15b, reinforcement ring 14b form cooling outlet 132 through intermediate opening 153 and opening 145a/b, the claim limitation is still not drawn. Figure 3b of the present application shows reinforcement ring 14b with opening 145b at first angle α, but the application does not contain a drawing of star disk 15b with intermediate opening 153 at first angle α. Since the limitation is not drawn the objection remains.
The Applicant's second point (page 9 of Remarks) amends claim 9 to include antecedent basis. Therefore the 112(b) rejection is moot and thus removed.
The Applicant's third point (page 9-12 of Remarks) amends claim 1 to include the limitations, “wherein the at least one coolant outlet is formed radially on a circumference of the second reinforcement ring.” The Applicant goes on to argue that adapter 46 of KRANK is not on the radial side, while this is true, this is not what is claimed. The adapter 46 of KRANK however is formed radially and on a circumference (emphasis added). The claim does not narrow the limitation to be on a radial side or be on the outer most circumference. Since the broadest reasonable interpretation can mean any radial length along any circumference the present claim is still taught by KRANK, thus the 102, and further more the 103 rejection remains. The Examiner recommends the Applicant further amends claim one to include the radial side and outer circumference to further define the limitation to overcome the current grounds of rejection.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “at least one intermediate opening is configured to allow the coolant to escape at a first angle to the radial direction of the rotor” as stated in claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated KRANK (US 20240171043 A1).
Regarding claim 1, KRANK teaches:
An internal rotor (Fig 1; 12)for an electric motor[0026], which is designed to rotate in a stator due to a magnetic field generated in the stator in order to drive a rotor shaft(Fig 1; 30) arranged on a rotor axis[0026], the internal rotor (Fig 1; 12)comprising:
a rotor body (Fig 1; 14)comprising a plurality of rotor teeth(Fig 1; 16)[0027];
rotor windings (Fig 1; 20)which are arranged on the rotor teeth(Fig 1; 16)[0027]; and
at least one displacement body(Fig 2/3; 28), which is arranged in a circumferential direction (Fig 2/3; 24)of the rotor (Fig 2/3; 12)between two adjacent rotor teeth (Fig 2/3; 16)and comprises a cooling channel(Fig 2/3; 22), which is configured to enable transport of a coolant between a first reinforcement ring (Fig 1; 40)comprising a coolant inlet (Fig 1; 46)[0030]and a second reinforcement ring (Fig 1; 40)comprising at least one coolant outlet(Fig 1; 46)[0030], wherein the first reinforcement ring (Fig 1; 40)and the second reinforcement ring (Fig 1; 40)are arranged in an axial direction on opposite end faces of the rotor[0032](the adapter 46 is interchangeable, allowing it to be an inlet 46 leading to coolant line 22 [0030] or an outlet leading out of coolant line 22 [0031]. In Figure 1 each example it shown on each axial end of the rotor respectively[0032]),
wherein the at least one coolant outlet(Fig 1; 46) is arranged and configured such that the escaping coolant experiences a movement via a component (Fig 1; 46)in a radial direction of the rotor(Fig 1; 12)(Figure 1 shows coolant 26 moving in a radial path upon reaching the outlet 46), and
wherein at least one coolant outlet(Fig 1; 46) is formed radially on a circumference of the second reinforcement ring(Fig 1; 40)(shown in Fig 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
735
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
377
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
381
511
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, KRANK teaches the rotor according to claim 1:
wherein the at least one coolant outlet(Fig 1; 46) is configured to allow the escaping coolant to escape(Figure 1 shows coolant 26 moving in a radial path upon reaching the outlet 46)at a second angle (Fig 6; A)to the radial direction in the circumferential direction of the rotor.
PNG
media_image4.png
402
554
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, KRANK teaches the rotor according to claim 1:
wherein the second reinforcement ring (Fig 6; 40)comprises a coolant intake(Fig 6; 44), which is configured to collect the coolant (Fig 6; 26) flowing out of the displacement body (Fig 6; 28)and distribute the coolant to the coolant outlet (Fig 6; 46)via at least one coolant conduit(Fig 6; 22)(the ring 40 functionally takes coolant 26 from the conduit 22 via the fluid opening 44 to the adapter 46 [0034]).
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KRANK (US 20240171043 A1) in view of VANHEE (US 20230261536 A1).
In regards to claim 3, KRANK teaches the rotor according to claim 1.
KRANK does not teach:
wherein the at least one coolant outlet is further arranged on a distribution collar which is arranged in the axial direction on the second reinforcement ring.
VANHEE teaches:
wherein the at least one coolant outlet(Fig 2; 151) is further arranged on a distribution collar (Fig 2; 150)which is arranged in the axial direction on the second reinforcement ring(Fig 2; 170).
PNG
media_image5.png
504
717
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 KRANK by adding the distribution ring taught by VANHEE, in order to cool the windings ends, thus improving motor efficiency[0027 VANHEE].
In regards to claim 4, KRANK teaches the rotor according to claim 1.
KRANK does not teach:
wherein the at least one coolant outlet is configured to allow the escaping coolant to escape at a first angle to the radial direction of the rotor, so that movement of the escaping coolant comprises a component in an axial direction.
VANHEE teaches:
wherein the at least one coolant outlet (Fig 2; 151)is configured to allow the escaping coolant to escape at a first angle(Fig 2; 210) to the radial direction of the rotor(Fig 2; 140), so that movement of the escaping coolant comprises a component in an axial direction(direction 210 is shown in Figure 2 to spray coolant in a radial and axial direction[0043]).
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 KRANK by using the coolant ejection angle taught by VANHEE, in order to give the coolant spray an axial component to cool the windings ends, thus improving motor efficiency[0043 VANHEE].
In regards to claim 5, KRANK in view of VANHEE teaches the rotor according to claim 4.
KRANK does not teach:
wherein a coolant conduit is provided, which leads to the at least one coolant outlet at the first angle to the radial direction of the rotor.
VANHEE teaches:
wherein a coolant conduit (Fig 2; 151)is provided, which leads to the at least one coolant outlet at the first angle (Fig 2; 210)to the radial direction of the rotor(direction 210 is shown in Figure 2 to spray coolant in a radial and axial direction[0043]).
In regards to claim 8, KRANK teaches the rotor according to claim 1.
KRANK does not teach:
wherein the rotor further comprises a first star disk and a second star disk, which are arranged in the axial direction between the rotor body and the first reinforcement ring and the second reinforcement ring, wherein the second star disk comprises a coolant conduit, which is configured to direct coolant escaping in the axial direction from the cooling channel provided in the rotor body to at least one intermediate opening in the second star disk, and wherein the at least one intermediate opening is configured to direct the coolant radially to the least one coolant outlet provided in the second reinforcement ring.
VANHEE teaches:
wherein the rotor further comprises a first star disk (Fig 5A; 501) and a second star disk(Fig 5A; 501)(may use multiple [0060]), which are arranged in the axial direction between the rotor body (Fig 5A; 500) and the first reinforcement ring(Fig 2; 150) and the second reinforcement ring(Fig 2; 150)(The star disks are laminations of the rotor body[0059], thus they must lie between the rotor body and reinforcement disk), wherein the second star disk comprises a coolant conduit(Fig 5A; 514), which is configured to direct coolant escaping in the axial direction(Fig 5A; 125) from cooling channel provided in the rotor body (Fig 5A; 500) to at least one intermediate opening (Fig 5A; 512) in the second star disk(Fig 5A; 501), and wherein the at least one intermediate opening (Fig 5A; 512) is configured to direct the coolant radially(Fig 5A; 513) to the least one coolant outlet (Fig 5A; 510) provided in the second reinforcement ring(shown in Fig 4).
PNG
media_image6.png
372
428
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 KRANK by adding the star disks taught by VANHEE, in order to better transport the coolant in an axial and radial direction of the rotor [0059-0060 VANHEE].
In regards to claim 9, KRANK in view of VANHEE teaches the rotor according to claim 8.
KRANK does not teach:
wherein a coolant intake, which is configured to receive the coolant from the rotor body and direct the coolant to the at least one intermediate opening, is also arranged in the second star disk.
VANHEE teaches:
wherein a coolant intake(Fig 5A; 508), which is configured to receive the coolant from the rotor body (Fig 5A; 500) and direct the coolant to the at least one intermediate opening(Fig 5A; 512), is also arranged in the second star disk(Fig 5A; 501).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10-16 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; or allowed respectively.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
While the prior art pieces do teach all the limitations in part one way or another, it would not have been obvious to combine them in such a way to achieve the present invention. The limitations are taught by the prior art, but would not be obvious to combine because they lack motivation to combine. With the current combination of art there would be no provided motivation to make the intermediate opening at a first angle. Thus, the claim contains allowable subject matter.
Claim 12-16 are allowed, and not rejected, because they depend from claim 11 that contains allowable subject matter.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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 NICHOLAS L SETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-3021. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8am-5pm 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, 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.
/N.L.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights