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 July 15, 2026. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed: claims 1-19 were previously pending; no claims were cancelled and no claims were added by amendment; and thus, claims 1-19 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 15,2026 have been fully considered.
The Applicant's first point (page 6 of Remarks) amends the claims to remove the limitation,“ a plurality of the coil support electrical insulations having a lattice structure.” The removal of this limitation makes this part of the drawing objection moot; thus, that part of the objection is removed.
Additionally, the Applicant argues that the other limitation illustrations are not essential for proper understanding of the invention. The Examiner fundamentally disagrees. Under 37 CFR 1.83(a), “The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.” This ensures the drawings fully support the claims and do not introduce new matter. Additionally, the Applicants argument that a drawing of the claim limitation is not essential for understanding could potentially infer that the limitation would be obvious to one having average skill in the art. Therefor the remaining drawing objections will be up held.
The Applicant's second point (page # of Remarks) amends the claims to include new limitations. The Applicant makes arguments to accompany the newly amended claims on why the previously presented prior art does no teach the newly presented claims. The arguments are found persuasive and the amendment necessitate new grounds of rejection. However, the new amendment contains unseen subject matter not disclosed by the specification or drawings. The rejection of this new subject matter is shown below in the 112(a) 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 following claimed subject matter must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
at least one fan is arranged coaxially with the salient pole rotor
at least one fan is arranged along a radial axis of the salient pole rotor
a plurality of the coil support electrical insulations being arranged to provide electrical insulation between the coil supports and the rotor coils
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 was amended to include limitation, “a top region, the top region comprising a first portion of a lattice structure” this limitation is found by the examiner to have new material not previously prevented in the application. The present application has been found to contain sources of, “a lattice structure”, but no sources showing the structural limitation of a “top region,” or “a first portion.”
Claim 1 was amended to include limitation, “each coil support defines a transverse region positioned such that the transverse region extends from a salient pole to an adjacent salient pole opposite the salient pole” this limitation is found by the examiner to have new material not previously prevented in the application. The present application has been found to contain sources of, “a coil support”, and “a salient pole”, but no sources showing the structural limitation of a “a transverse region”
Claim 1 was amended to include limitation, “the transverse region comprising a second portion of the lattice structure configured to enable air flow” this limitation is found by the examiner to have new material not previously prevented in the application. The present application has been found to contain sources of, “a lattice structure”, but no sources showing the structural limitation of a “the transverse region,” or “a second portion.”
The Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘a top region’, ‘a first portion’, ‘a transverse region,’ or ‘a second region’ in the application as filed. See Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007) or [MPEP] § 2163.04.
Claims 2-19 are rejected solely for being dependent to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner' s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 1: The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowance:
The prior art teaches:
A rotating electrical machine comprising:
a stator, and
a salient pole rotor rotatably arranged in the stator, the salient pole rotor having:
salient poles, each salient pole including a protruding body and a rotor coil wound around the protruding body, and
a plurality of coil supports arranged between adjacent salient poles, the plurality of coil supports configured to hold rotor coils of adjacent salient poles in place, wherein:
each coil support includes a structure configured to enable air flow in a radial direction of the salient pole rotor, and in a longitudinal axial direction of the salient pole rotor.
However, the prior art does not teach:
the top region comprising a first portion of a lattice structure includes a structure configured to enable air flow in a radial direction; and
the transverse region extends from a salient pole to an adjacent salient pole opposite the salient pole, the transverse region comprising a second portion of the lattice structure configured to enable air flow in a longitudinal axial direction.
(The underlined is allowable subject matter.)
Claim 1 is allowed, and not rejected, because the limitation of a first portion of a lattice structure includes a structure configured to enable air flow in a radial direction; and a second portion of the lattice structure configured to enable air flow in a longitudinal axial direction, is too specific which makes it novel.
Claims 2-19 are also allowed because they depend from allowed claims 1.
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