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 08 July 2026. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed, claims 1-11 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed 08 July 2026, have been fully considered but are only partially persuasive.
The Applicant’s first argument (page 5 of the Remarks) states that claims 10-11 have been amended to depend from claim 9 instead of claim 7, thereby providing proper antecedent basis for the term “each stator channel”. This argument is persuasive and the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
The Applicant’s second argument (page 5 of the Remarks) states that Matsumoto does not disclose the amended limitation of claim 1, reciting “a housing passage”. Since Matsumoto does not show such a passage in the housing, this argument is persuasive. However, since multiple references cited in the non-final rejection do disclose this feature, new grounds of rejection have been made under 35 U.S.C. 103.
The Applicant’s third argument (pages 5-6 of the Remarks) alleges that Matsumoto does not disclose the oil being supplied directly through the core holes outside the stator to the air gap inside of the stator. However, as stated in the non-final rejection, the direction of the oil flow, and these associated limitations, is merely a statement of the intended use of the various flow passages. It has been held that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Since these recitations of the intended use of the flow passages do not result in any structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art devices, the prior art structure meets the claim. Thus, this argument is unpersuasive and the previous grounds of rejection in view of Matsumoto are maintained.
The Applicant’s fourth argument (page 6 of the Remarks) alleges that claims 10-11 are allowable by virtue of their dependency on claim 1. This argument is unpersuasive for the same reasons given above.
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.
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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (US 2021/0194297 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Matsumoto”, in view of Pal (US 2011/0234029 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Pal”.
Regarding claim 1, Matsumoto discloses a motor [100] with a cooling structure (fig. 1-4; ¶ 0034), the motor [100] comprising:
a housing (fig. 2; ¶ 0035; “fixed portions 40 fixed to a casing”);
a stator [10] disposed inside the housing (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0034-0035);
a rotor [50] disposed inside the stator [10] (fig. 1; ¶ 0034); and
a shaft [51] passing through the rotor [50] (fig. 1; ¶ 0041),
PNG
media_image1.png
662
1268
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein a plurality of core through-holes [20], which pass through an outer surface and an inner surface of the stator [10], are formed in the stator [10] (fig. 1-2, 4; ¶ 0035, 0038-0039),
wherein oil supplied directly through the plurality of core through-holes [20] from the outside of the stator [10] is supplied to an air gap formed between the inner surface of the stator [10] and the rotor [50] (fig. 1-4; oil flow is shown by the arrows; it is noted that this statement of the intended use of the core through-holes only limits the structure to that which is capable of allowing an oil flow between the inner and outer surfaces, i.e. the direction of flow does not further limit the structure of the device).
Matsumoto does not disclose that a housing passage is formed in the housing that communicates with at least one core through-hole of the plurality of core through-holes and overlaps a radial direction of the stator.
Pal discloses a motor comprising a stator [28] disposed inside a housing [18] (fig. 2-3a; ¶ 0014-0015), wherein a housing passage [48] is formed in the housing [18] that communicates with a plurality of stator channels [44,46] and overlaps a radial direction of the stator [18] (fig. 4; ¶ 0016; “inlet 48 is in fluid communication with a cooling source 52 and communicates a cooling fluid to the centrally located second channel 46”).
PNG
media_image2.png
424
670
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 implement the housing of Matsumoto having a housing passage at its axial center as taught by Pal, thereby communicating with the plurality of core through-holes taught by Matsumoto, in order to provide an inlet/outlet for the cooling fluid (¶ 0002 of Pal) directly to the core through-holes.
Regarding claim 2, Matsumoto, in view of Pal, discloses the motor [100] of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the at least one core through-hole [20] includes:
a first core through-hole [22] formed from the outer surface of the stator [10] to an inside of the stator [10] (fig. 1, 4; ¶ 0038); and
a second core through-hole [21] formed from the inner surface of the stator [10] to the inside of the stator [10] (fig. 1, 4; ¶ 0038),
wherein the first core through-hole [22] and the second core through-hole [21] communicate inside the stator [10] (fig. 1, 4; ¶ 0038).
Regarding claim 3, Matsumoto, in view of Pal, discloses the motor [100] of claim 2, as stated above, wherein, where a 12 o’clock direction in a cross section of the stator is equated to 0°, the at least one core through-hole [20] is formed at a position in a range of ±30° based on the 12 o’clock direction (fig. 2; the holes are aligned with each slot. Since there are 48 slots, each slot/hole is spaced apart by 7.5°. Thus, approximately 8 holes are located within 60° on either side of each of the horizontal and vertical axes).
Regarding claim 4, Matsumoto, in view of Pal, discloses the motor [100] of claim 2, as stated above, wherein, where a 12 o’clock direction in a cross section of the stator is equated to 0°, the at least one core through-hole [20] is formed at a position in a range of 180°±30° based on the 12 o’clock direction (fig. 2; the holes are aligned with each slot. Since there are 48 slots, each slot/hole is spaced apart by 7.5°. Thus, approximately 8 holes are located within 60° on either side of each of the horizontal and vertical axes).
Regarding claim 5, Matsumoto, in view of Pal, discloses the motor [100] of claim 2, as stated above, wherein, where a 12 o’clock direction in a cross section of the stator is equated to 0°, the at least one core through-hole [20] is formed at a position in a range of +90°±30° and -90°±30° (fig. 2; the holes are aligned with each slot. Since there are 48 slots, each slot/hole is spaced apart by 7.5°. Thus, approximately 8 holes are located within 60° on either side of each of the horizontal and vertical axes).
Regarding claim 6, Matsumoto, in view of Pal, discloses the motor [100] of claim 2, as stated above, wherein the stator [10] is formed by stacking a plurality of electrical steel sheets [12] (fig. 1; ¶ 0036-0037); and
among the plurality of electrical steel sheets [12], an electrical steel sheet [14] in which the first core through-hole [22] is formed and an electrical steel sheet [13] in which the second core through-hole [21] is formed are stacked (fig. 1; ¶ 0038).
PNG
media_image3.png
298
792
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Matsumoto, in view of Pal, discloses the motor [100] of claim 2, as stated above, wherein a stator channel [30c] is formed on the outer surface of the stator [10] in a longitudinal direction of the stator [10] (fig. 2-4; ¶ 0035-0036; channels/grooves are formed between each of the “projection portions 30”), and wherein the first core through-hole [20] communicates with the stator channel [30c] (fig. 4; arrows show the flow of coolant through both the holes and the channels).
Regarding claim 8, Matsumoto, in view of Pal, discloses the motor [100] of claim 7, as stated above, wherein holes for oil discharge and internal pressure adjustment are formed at both ends of the stator channel [30c] (fig. 2; the axial ends of each stator channel are open; it is noted that the included statement of the intended use of the holes, i.e. for oil discharge and internal pressure adjustment, only limits the structure to that which is capable of allowing an oil flow in/out of the channel, i.e. an opening).
Regarding claim 9, Matsumoto, in view of Pal, discloses the motor [100] of claim 7, as stated above, wherein the stator channel [30c] is formed as a plurality of stator channels [30c] at regular intervals in a circumferential direction of the stator [10] (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Matsumoto, in view of Pal, discloses the motor [100] of claim 9, as stated above. Matsumoto does not disclose that a plurality of passages are formed in each stator channel [30c].
Pal further discloses a motor comprising a stator [28] disposed inside a housing [18] (fig. 2-3a; ¶ 0014-0015) and having a plurality of stator channels [44,46] spaced around its perimeter (fig. 2-3; ¶ 0017), wherein a plurality of passages [T] are formed in each stator channel [44,46] (fig. 3a, 5; ¶ 0016, 0020).
PNG
media_image4.png
309
886
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 each of the stator channels of Matsumoto having a plurality of passages formed by cooling fins as taught by Pal, in order to provide increased surface area in contact with the cooling fluid (¶ 0020 of Pal) thereby increasing heat transfer and improving cooling efficiency.
Regarding claim 11, Matsumoto, in view of Pal, discloses the motor [100] of claim 9, as stated above. Matsumoto does not disclose that a cooling fin is formed in each stator channel [30c].
Pal further discloses a motor comprising a stator [28] disposed inside a housing [18] (fig. 2-3a; ¶ 0014-0015) and having a plurality of stator channels [44,46] spaced around its perimeter (fig. 2-3; ¶ 0017), wherein a cooling fin [66] is formed in each stator channel [44,46] (fig. 3a, 5; ¶ 0016, 0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement each of the stator channels of Matsumoto having a plurality of passages formed by cooling fins as taught by Pal, in order to provide increased surface area in contact with the cooling fluid (¶ 0020 of Pal) thereby increasing heat transfer and improving cooling efficiency.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Prior art:
Garety et al. (US 2023/0198320 A1) discloses a motor comprising a stator within a housing, the stator having core through-holes supplying cooling oil from the outer surface to the inner surface of the stator, and the outer end of each core through-hole being disposed within a stator channel.
Takahashi et al. (US 2019/0280547 A1) discloses a motor comprising a stator within a housing, the stator having core through-holes supplying cooling oil from the outer surface to the inner surface of the stator, and the outer end of each core through-hole being disposed within a stator channel.
Gugel et al. (US 2016/0006302 A1) discloses a motor comprising a stator within a housing, the stator having core through-holes supplying cooling oil from the outer surface to the inner surface of the stator, and the outer end of each core through-hole being disposed within a stator channel.
Uchiyama et al. (US 2011/0221286 A1) discloses a motor comprising a stator within a housing, the stator having core through-holes supplying cooling oil from the outer surface to the inner surface of the stator, and each core through-hole is formed by first and second holes formed in first and second laminations, respectively.
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