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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 17-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/16/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/16/2024 and 10/28/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krebs (WO2017215686).
As to independent claim 1, Krebs teaches a rotor shaft (5) for an electric motor comprising: an axially extending tubular body having an inner circumferential surface (8) defining a hollow interior thereof, at least a portion of the hollow interior configured to receive a coolant therein; and a plurality of circumferentially spaced splines (55, 56, 57, 58) extending radially inwardly from the inner circumferential surface into the at least a portion of the hollow interior (34) configured to receive the coolant therein, each of the splines (55, 56, 57, 58) configured to provide a heat exchanging structure for transferring heat from the rotor shaft (5) to the coolant wherein the splines (55, 56, 57, 58) are formed using one of a flow forming process, a cold forging process, or a hot forging process as shown in figures 8-9.
Note: The Examiner points out the limitation of “are formed using one of a flow forming process, a cold forging process, or a hot forging process” is considered as a product-by-process limitation. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777F, 2d 659, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also MPEP 2113.
As to claim 5/1, Krebs teaches wherein each of the splines (55, 56, 57, 58) extends longitudinally at an incline with respect to an axial direction of the tubular body as shown in figures 8-9.
As to claim 13/1, Krebs teaches wherein each of the splines (55, 56, 57, 58) is provided as a cooling insert coupled to the inner circumferential surface (34) of the tubular body as shown in figures 8-9.
As to claim 14/1, Krebs teaches wherein each of the splines (55, 56, 57, 58) is provided as a cooling insert coupled to the inner circumferential surface of the tubular body as shown in figures 8-9. .
As to claim 15/14, Krebs teaches wherein each of the cooling inserts is captured by the tubular body during a flow forming process as shown in figure 8-9.
Note: The Examiner points out the limitation of “forming process” is considered as a product-by-process limitation. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777F, 2d 659, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also MPEP 2113.
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.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krebs (WO2017215686) as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Fligertshofer (US PG Pub 20170237316).
As to claim 2/1, Krebs teaches wherein the tubular body includes a first end portion (right side, shaft 5) having a first outer diameter, an oppositely arranged second end portion (left side , shaft 5) having a second outer diameter,
However Krebs teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except a cylindrical portion disposed between the first end portion and the second end portion and having a third outer diameter, wherein the third diameter is greater than each of the first diameter and the second diameter.
However Fligertshofer teaches a cylindrical portion disposed between the first end portion (20) and the second end portion (21) and having a third outer diameter wherein the third diameter (22) is greater than each of the first diameter (200) and the second diameter (21) as shown in figure 4, for the advantageous benefit of improving heat removal efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Krebs by using a cylindrical portion disposed between the first end portion and the second end portion and having a third outer diameter, wherein the third diameter is greater than each of the first diameter and the second diameter, as taught by Fligertshofer, to improve heat removal efficiency.
As to claim 3/2, Krebs teaches the plurality of the splines (55, 56, 57, 58) extends radially inwardly from the cylindrical portion of the tubular body as shown in figures 8,9.
As to claim 4/3, Krebs in view of Fligertshofer teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the first end portion is open ended and provides a fluid inlet into the hollow interior of the tubular body.
However Fligertshofer teaches the first end portion (20) is open ended and provides a fluid inlet into the hollow interior of the tubular body as shown in figure 4, for the advantageous benefit of improving heat removal efficiency
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Krebs in view of Fligertshofer by using the first end portion is open ended and provides a fluid inlet into the hollow interior of the tubular body, as taught by Fligertshofer, to improve heat removal efficiency.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krebs (WO2017215686) as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawabata (JP09051657).
As to claim 6/1, Krebs teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the tubular body includes a sensing structure including a plurality of circumferentially repeated indentations and/or projections, wherein the sensing structure is formed integrally with the tubular body using one of a cold forging process or a hot forging process.
However Kawabata teaches wherein the tubular body includes a sensing structure (12) including a plurality of circumferentially repeated indentations and/or projections (see paragraph [0019], gear or slits), wherein the sensing structure is formed integrally with the tubular body using one of a cold forging process or a hot forging process as shown in figure 1, eliminating the shear at a rotation detecting section even when a hollow shaft carrying a rotor is thermally elongated to the load side by mounting the rotation detecting section on the opposite side to the load.
Note: The Examiner points out the limitation of “the sensing structure is formed integrally with the tubular body using one of a cold forging process or a hot forging process” is considered as a product-by-process limitation. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777F, 2d 659, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also MPEP 2113.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Krebs by using the tubular body includes a sensing structure including a plurality of circumferentially repeated indentations and/or projections, as taught by Kawabata, to eliminate the shear at a rotation detecting section even when a hollow shaft carrying a rotor is thermally elongated to the load side by mounting the rotation detecting section on the opposite side to the load.
As to claim 7/6, Krebs in view of Kawabata teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the sensing structure is formed adjacent a closed end of the tubular body delimiting the hollow interior thereof in an axial direction of the tubular body.
However Kawabata teaches the sensing structure (12) is formed adjacent a closed end of the tubular body delimiting the hollow interior thereof in an axial direction of the tubular body as shown in figure 1, eliminating the shear at a rotation detecting section even when a hollow shaft carrying a rotor is thermally elongated to the load side by mounting the rotation detecting section on the opposite side to the load.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Krebs by formed adjacent a closed end of the tubular body delimiting the hollow interior thereof in an axial direction of the tubular body, as taught by Kawabata, to eliminate the shear at a rotation detecting section even when a hollow shaft carrying a rotor is thermally elongated to the load side by mounting the rotation detecting section on the opposite side to the load.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krebs (WO2017215686) as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Reynolds (WO2020159894).
As to claim 11/1, Krebs teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the tubular body is divided axially into a first shaft segment and a second shaft segment, wherein each of the splines spans a joint present between the first shaft segment and the second shaft segment.
However Reynolds drawn to shafts, discloses, wherein the tubular body is divided axially into a first shaft segment and a second shaft segment, wherein each of the splines spans a joint present between the first shaft segment and the second shaft segment (para [0035]- Referring to FIG. 1 C, the end 102b can have a corresponding recess 112, and the plurality of splines of the element 106 can be on an interior surface of the recess 112; para [0036]- The shaft 100 may convey rotation that must be mechanically linked or associated with the rotation of another shaft so that multiple components within one machine arrangement driven by the multiple shafts have the correct; para [0041 ]- the end 102b can also be missing the corresponding spline (e.g., groove) for the missing spline on the extension 110), for the advantageous benefit of providing split shafts are separated into two separate portions so that the time is saved and cumbersome is less when making changes to the machine line as compared to conventional shafts.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Krebs by using the tubular body is divided axially into a first shaft segment and a second shaft segment, wherein each of the splines spans a joint present between the first shaft segment and the second shaft segment, as taught by Reynolds, to provide split shafts are separated into two separate portions so that the time is saved and cumbersome is less when making changes to the machine line as compared to conventional shafts.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krebs (WO2017215686) in view of Filgertshofer (US PG Pub 20170237316).
As to independent claim 16, Krebs teaches a rotor shaft (5) for an electric motor comprising: an axially extending tubular body having an inner circumferential surface (8) defining a hollow interior thereof, at least a portion of the hollow interior configured to receive a coolant therein; and a plurality of circumferentially spaced splines (55, 56, 57, 58) extending radially inwardly from the inner circumferential surface into the at least a portion of the hollow interior (34) configured to receive the coolant therein, each of the splines (55, 56, 57, 58) configured to provide a heat exchanging structure for transferring heat from the rotor shaft (5) to the coolant wherein the splines (55, 56, 57, 58) as shown in figures 8-9.
However Krebs teaches the claimed limitation as dissed above except wherein the splines have a helical shape.
Filgertshofer teaches the splines have a helical shape (see paragraph [0015]), for the advantageous benefit of improving heat removal efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Krebs by using the splines have a helical shape, as taught by Filgertshofer, to improve heat removal efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8-10 and 12, 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. Notes claim 8 depends claim 1, claims 9 depend claim 8, Note claim 12 depends claim 11,
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE A GONZALEZ QUINONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7850. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6:30-2:30 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, QUYEN LEUNG can be reached on (571)272-8188. 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.
/JOSE A GONZALEZ QUINONES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834 July 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights