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 . Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 1, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Skalski, V. (US 20180304835 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
388
561
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
444
658
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Skalski discloses an electric drive system for a work vehicle (intended application), the electric drive system comprising:
an electric machine (22, fig. 2) of the electric drive system;
an inverter (inverter system 54, fig. 1) for providing power to the electric machine of the electric drive system (para [0003]: “An inverter converts direct current (DC) power from the high voltage battery pack to alternating current (AC) power for driving the electric motor.”);
PNG
media_image3.png
485
451
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a bus bar (bus bar annotated fig. 2, and 66, fig. 4;) electrically coupling a first electrical conductor of the electric machine (67, fig. 4) to a second electrical conductor of the inverter (70, fig. 4; see para [0055]), wherein the bus bar has a first end (68, fig. 4) coupled to the first electrical conductor and a second end coupled to the second electrical conductor (72, fig. 4), the first electrical conductor located within a first enclosure (60, fig. 2, motor housing) and the inverter located within a second enclosure (56, fig. 2, inverter housing is on top of the motor housing); and
an inter-housing barrier (barrier, annotated fig. 2; terminal block assembly 58 includes a seal 76, fig. 7) positioned between the first enclosure (first enclosure, annotated fig. 2) and the second enclosure (first enclosure, annotated fig. 2), wherein the inter-housing barrier surrounds a segment of the bus bar and is configured to provide a fluid-tight seal that prevents fluid transfer between the first and second enclosures (see para [0047]: “The terminal block assembly 58 may be mounted to a surface 64 of the motor housing 60 for sealing the wet environment of the motor stator 62 from the dry inverter system 54.”)
Regarding claim 4, Skalski discloses the electric drive system according to claim 1, further comprising a gasket (para [0058]: “The seal 76 is adapted to seal the inverter system 54 from the wet environment of the motor stator 62 of the electric motor 22. The seal 76 may be a surface seal, such as a gasket seal, or any other type of seal.”) that seals the electric machine and the inverter from environmental exposure and prevents fluid transfer between the first enclosure and the second enclosure.
Regarding claim 5, Skalski discloses the electric drive system according to claim 1, wherein the inter-housing barrier includes a flange that abuts an aperture of the second enclosure (para [0047]: “The terminal block assembly 58 may be mounted to a surface 64 of the motor housing 60 for sealing the wet environment of the motor stator 62 from the dry inverter system 54. In a non-limiting embodiment, the surface 64 is a mounting flange of the motor housing 60.”) and an engagement interface (bus bar) that is inserted into an aperture of the first enclosure.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skalski, V. (US 20180304835 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Skalski discloses the electric drive system according to claim 1, wherein the first enclosure includes a first fluid (para [0058]: “Once the terminal block assembly 58 has been mounted to the electric motor 22, the seal 76 is sandwiched between the surface 64 of the motor housing 60 and the housing 74 to substantially block fluids from being communicated from the wet environment of the motor stator 62 to the dry environment of the inverter system 54.”).
Skalski does not disclose: the second enclosure includes a second fluid, the first fluid and the second fluid being immiscible.
Skalski’s disclosure is focused on the terminal block assembly. However, cooling an inverter via a first cooling circuit and an electric motor via a second cooling circuit is well-known in the art and deploying such dual cooling circuits employing water for the inverter and oil for the engine are within the skills of a person having ordinary skills in the art to effectively cool the system.
For cooling the electric drive system, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drive system in such a way that: the second enclosure includes a second fluid, the first fluid and the second fluid being immiscible.
Claim(s) 10-12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skalski, V. (US 20180304835 A1) in view of Jin et al. (EP 4461576 A2).
Regarding claim 10, Skalski as discussed regarding claim 1 discloses a work vehicle having an electric drive system, the work vehicle comprising:
an electric machine housed within a first enclosure containing a first fluid, the electric machine including first electrical conductors;
an inverter externally mounted relative to the electric machine and housed within a second enclosure, the inverter including second electrical conductors; and
a bus bar assembly comprising: bus bars electrically coupling the first electrical conductors of the electric machine to the second electrical conductors of the inverter; and
inter-housing barriers positioned between the first enclosure and the second enclosure, wherein the inter-housing barriers surround a segment of each of the bus bars and provide a fluid-tight seal preventing transfer of the first fluid into the second enclosure and the second fluid into the first enclosure.
Skalski does not disclose: the second enclosure containing a second fluid.
PNG
media_image4.png
563
609
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Jin discloses a dual cooling circuit system for a work vehicle that uses a water-cooling circuit for cooling an inverter and an oil-cooling circuit for cooling an electric machine and a drive system (fig. 1, above). Jin uses a dual cooling circuit because: “The components in an electric driving unit have different energy transfer efficiencies, so they have different heating capacities. The maximum temperatures that each component can withstand (hereinafter referred to as withstand temperature) also vary. Usually, electric motors and gearboxes have low efficiencies, high heating capacities, and high withstand temperatures, while power electronic devices have high efficiencies, low heating capacities, but low withstand temperatures.”
To cool the components of the work vehicle efficiently, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work vehicle by cooling the components of the work via a dual cooling circuit resulting in: the second enclosure containing a second fluid.
Regarding claim 11, Skalski as discussed regarding claim 1 and modified by Jin in claim 10 discloses the work vehicle according to claim 10, wherein the inverter is housed within a second enclosure containing water as a cooling fluid, wherein the inter-housing barrier provides a sealing interface that prevents the transmission fluid from mixing with the water.
Skalski as modified does not disclose: the electric machine is integrated within a transmission housing containing a transmission fluid as the first fluid.
Jin discloses: the electric machine is integrated within a transmission housing containing a transmission fluid as the first fluid (see Machine Translation copy: “For the sake of compactness and transmission efficiency, the housings for the electric motor 3 and the gearbox 4 may be integrated, which means that these two housings may be formed integrally or assembled from a plurality of housing components.”)
For the sake of compactness and transmission efficiency, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the work vehicle in such a way that: the electric machine is integrated within a transmission housing containing a transmission fluid as the first fluid.
Regarding claim 12, Skalski as discussed regarding claim 1 and modified by Jin in claims 10 and 11 discloses the work vehicle according to claim 11, wherein the inter-housing barriers each include a flange that abuts an aperture of the second enclosure and an engagement interface that is inserted into an aperture of the first enclosure (this limitation was disclosed by Skalski as discussed regarding claim 5).
Regarding claim 16, Skalski as discussed regarding claim 1 and modified by Jin in claim 10 discloses the work vehicle according to claim 10, wherein the first enclosure includes a first fluid (oil) and the second enclosure includes a second fluid (water), the first fluid and the second fluid being immiscible (obviously).
Regarding claim 17, Skalski as discussed regarding claim 1 and modified by Jin in claim 10 discloses the work vehicle according to claim 10, wherein the inter-housing barriers are constructed from a high-temperature resistant material capable of elastic deformation (implied due to working under high temperature).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6-9, 13-15 and 18-20 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.
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure listed on form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MASOUD VAZIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-2340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 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, the examiner’s supervisor, SEYE IWARERE can be reached on (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.
/MASOUD VAZIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights