DETAILED ACTION
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 24 June 2026. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed: claims 1-11 were previously pending; claims 4, 6-7, and 11 were canceled by the amendment; and thus, claims 1-3, 5, and 8-10 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed 24 June 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s first argument (page 5 of the Remarks) states that the amendment to claim 1 has provided antecedent basis for all terms in claim 5. As such, the previous ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
The Applicant’s second argument (pages 5-7 of the Remarks) alleges that it would not have been obvious to rearrange the rotor and stator of Ludwig into an inner stator arrangement as taught by Naumanen because doing so allegedly would have required “substantial redesigning of the entire” device. However, no evidence is provided in support of this allegation, which appears to be no more than the Applicant’s opinion. Naumanen provides explicit motivation for the modification and it has been held that merely rearranging the essential working parts of a device would be an obvious matter of design choice. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Thus, this argument is unpersuasive and the previous grounds of rejection in view of Ludwig and Naumanen are maintained.
The Applicant’s third argument (page 7 of the Remarks) alleges that the combination of Ludwig and Naumanen relies on impermissible hindsight because neither reference discloses the claimed invention in its entirety. However, the standard the argument attempts to apply is that of anticipation, not obviousness. Obviousness does not require that either reference disclose the claimed invention as a whole. Thus, this argument is unpersuasive and the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
The Applicant’s fourth argument (pages 7-8 of the Remarks) alleges that Ludwig does not disclose the “protuberances” recited in claim 7, because those of element 16a are allegedly used to create the cooling channel rather than project into it. This argument is unpersuasive because cooling channel [6], i.e. the space between the flat plates of elements [16a] and [16b], would still exist without the protuberances. The presence of said protuberances does not create the channel, it merely gives the channel its meandering shape, by projecting into and blocking portions of said channel. Thus, this argument is unpersuasive and the previous grounds of rejection are maintained.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Disclosure
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludwig et al. (DE 10 2018 126 775 B4), hereinafter referred to as “Ludwig”, in view of Naumanen et al. (EP 3091637 B1), hereinafter referred to as “Naumanen”.
Regarding claim 1, Ludwig discloses an electric motor [3] comprising:
a stator [31] (fig. 1; ¶ 0030),
a rotor [32] surrounded by the stator [31] (fig. 1; ¶ 0030),
a shaft [4] connected to the rotor [32] in a rotationally fixed manner (fig. 1; ¶ 0030),
a first housing component [16] and a second housing component [1], which together enclose a motor compartment [13], in which the rotor [32] and the stator [31] are arranged (fig. 1; ¶ 0031-0034),
PNG
media_image1.png
676
890
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein a first end [left] of the shaft [4] is arranged in the motor compartment [13] and a second end [right] of the shaft [4] protrudes from an opening of the second housing component [1] (fig. 1),
the first housing component [16], together with a third housing component [15], encloses an electronics compartment in which control electronics [5] are arranged (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0032-0033),
a wall [16a,16b] of the first housing component [16] separates the motor compartment [13] from the electronics compartment (fig. 1; ¶ 0033),
the control electronics [5] have a circuit board [5], whose board plane faces the said wall [16a,16b] (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0033),
wherein the first housing component [16] has an inlet [61a] and an outlet [62a] for coolant (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0034), and
a cooling channel [6,60] for purposes of cooling the stator [31] and the control electronics [5] (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0034; coolant enters through inlet [61], passes through channel [60], enters channel [6] at inlet [61a], exits channel [6] at outlet [62a], passes back through channel [60], and is discharged through outlet [62]).
wherein the first housing component [16] carries a cooling plate [16a,16b], and an electronic component [5] of the control electronics [5] abuts against one face of the cooling plate [16b], while the cooling channel [6] runs along an opposite face of the cooling plate [16b] (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0033), and
wherein the cooling plate [16a,16b] has protuberances that protrude into the cooling channel [6] (fig. 1; the space, i.e. channel [6], between the flat plates of elements [16a] and [16b] is divided into a meandering shape by the protrusions of [16a]).
Ludwig does not disclose the rotor [32] surrounding the stator [31] (i.e. Ludwig discloses an outer stator rather than an inner stator).
Naumanen discloses an electric motor comprising a stator [100] and a rotor [111] surrounding the stator [100] (fig. 1a; ¶ 0019).
PNG
media_image2.png
670
614
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the electric motor of Ludwig as an inner stator motor as taught by Naumanen, in order to prevent disengagement of the rotor magnets and to avoid increases in the heat resistance between the stator and its cooling element that would impair cooling the stator (¶ 0003-0004 of Naumanen).
Regarding claim 2, Ludwig, in view of Naumanen, discloses the electric motor [3] in accordance with claim 1, as stated above, wherein the electronics compartment and the motor compartment [13] are sealed against each other (fig. 1; ¶ 0033).
Regarding claim 5, Ludwig, in view of Naumanen, discloses the electric motor [3] in accordance with claim 1, as stated above, wherein the cooling channel [6,60] runs along the wall [16a,16b] that separates the motor compartment [13] from the electronics compartment (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0033-0034).
Regarding claim 8, Ludwig, in view of Naumanen, discloses the electric motor [3] in accordance with claim 1, as stated above, wherein Naumanen further discloses that the cooling channel [107] leads through an interior space surrounded by the stator [100], which space is bounded by the wall of the first housing component [110] (fig. 1a; ¶ 0020).
Regarding claim 9, Ludwig, in view of Naumanen, discloses the electric motor [3] in accordance with claim 1, as stated above, wherein the cooling channel [6,60] has cooling channel sections, arranged one behind the other, for purposes of cooling the control electronics [5] and the stator [31] (fig. 2; the cooling channel follows a serpentine path with linear sections arranged parallel to one another).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludwig and Naumanen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kerschbaum (DE 10 2008 046 446 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Kerschbaum”.
Regarding claim 3, Ludwig, in view of Naumanen, discloses the electric motor [3] in accordance with claim 1, as stated above. Ludwig does not disclose that the electronics compartment and the motor compartment [13] each have a pressure equalization opening, which is closed by a membrane which is permeable to air, and impermeable to water in liquid form.
Kerschbaum discloses an electric motor [11] comprising an electronics compartment and a motor compartment (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0036-0038), wherein the electronics compartment and the motor compartment each have a pressure equalization opening [3,10], which is closed by a membrane [2,9] which is permeable to air, and impermeable to water in liquid form (fig. 2; ¶ 0005, 0039-0041).
PNG
media_image3.png
365
688
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the electric motor of Ludwig having pressure equalization openings for each of the motor and electronics compartments as taught by Kerschbaum, in order to balance the internal pressure with that of the surrounding environment thereby improving the service life of shaft seals (¶ 0006 of Kerschbaum).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludwig and Naumanen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jaeger et al. (DE 196 37 192 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Jaeger”.
Regarding claim 10, Ludwig, in view of Naumanen, discloses the electric motor [3] in accordance with claim 1, as stated above. Ludwig does not disclose that the first housing component [16] has a housing opening in which an electrical plug connector is mounted, which is connected to the control electronics [5].
Jaeger discloses an electric motor [4,5] comprising a first housing component [1.1] separating the motor [4,5] from its control electronics [2] (fig. 1; ¶ 0012-0014), wherein the first housing component [1.1] has a housing opening [1.4] in which an electrical plug connector [7] is mounted, which is connected to the control electronics [2] (fig. 2-5; ¶ 0016-0019).
PNG
media_image4.png
298
781
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the first housing component of Ludwig having the electrical plug connector as taught by Jaeger, in order to allow for pre-testing and then final-assembly in a simple and safe manner that ensures electrical contact with the motor winding (¶ 0020 of Jaeger).
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Prior art:
Lauer (US 2022/0294303 A1) discloses an electric motor comprising electronic components sealed from the motor by a first housing component and whose board plane faces a wall of said first housing component.
Geue et al. (US 2021/0180609 A1) discloses an electric motor comprising electronic components sealed from the motor by a first housing component and whose board plane faces a wall of said first housing component.
Bohl et al. (US 2018/0252219 A1) discloses an electric motor comprising electronic components sealed from the motor by a first housing component, whose board plane faces a wall of said first housing component, and a cooling channel for cooling said electronic components.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/about-ptab/new-ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/patent-trial-and-appeal-board-pro-bono-program-independent. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final replay that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Andrews whose telephone number is (571)270-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30am-3:00pm.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael Andrews/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights