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 .
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 (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 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, 3, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Powers et al. (“Powers”; 6,317,963).
Regarding claim 1: Powers discloses a cooling structure (Fig. 5) for a rotary electric machine (10, Fig. 1), the structure comprising:
an annular radiator body (Fig. 5) defining an axis X (20) between a first end (left side of Fig. 5, pertaining to 48 in Fig. 1) and a second end (right side of Fig. 5, 44 in Fig. 1), the annular body having:
a radially inner wall (30, Fig. 1);
a radially outer wall (28); and
a plurality of channels (38, four channels shown in Fig. 2) defined between the radially inner wall and the radially outer wall,
wherein each of the plurality of channels extending from the first end to the second end (as shown in Fig. 1), and
wherein each of the plurality of channels has an inner channel wall (as vanes 40 must protrude from an inner wall) and comprising a plurality of vanes (40) extending inwardly into the channel from the channel wall (as shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3: Powers discloses each vane (40) extends from the channel wall and has a rounded distal end (as shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12: Powers discloses a coolant inlet at the first end; and
a coolant outlet at the second end (column 4, lines 48-50: there is a cooling flow over the vanes 40, inherently there is an inlet and outlet).
Regarding claim 13: Powers discloses a rotary electric motor comprising:
a rotor (14, Fig. 1) and a stator (12) in coaxial arrangement; and
a cooling structure as claimed in claim 1 (see claim 1),
wherein the cooling structure is arranged around the rotor and stator (as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14: Powers disclose the coolant is air (column 4, lines 48-50: “cooling flow” implies air).
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.
Claims 2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powers, in view of Lin et al. (“Lin”; US 2007/0246189).
Regarding claim 2: Powers discloses the vanes include vanes extending from the channel wall at an angle, but does not explicitly disclose at an angle of greater than 0 degrees and less than 90 degrees relative to the wall from which they extend.
However, Lin discloses an angle of greater than 0 degrees and less than 90 degrees relative to the wall from which they extend (shown best in Fig. 3, as the channel is curved, the angle of the vanes is between 0 and 90 degrees).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the angle of Powers to be between 0 and 90, as disclosed by Lin, in order to allow for more efficient cooling (paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 4: Powers discloses the plurality of vanes within a channel but does not explicitly disclose a plurality of axial rows of vanes.
However, Lin discloses a plurality of axial rows of vanes (20, as shown in Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the vanes in the channel of Powers to be a plurality axial rows of vanes, as disclosed by Lin, in order to increase the surface area.
Regarding claim 5: Powers modified by Lin discloses a plurality of axial rows of vanes, Lin further discloses the plurality of vanes includes a plurality of groups of axial rows of vanes (as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6: Powers modified by Lin discloses a plurality of axial rows of vanes, Lin further discloses two groups of three axial rows of vanes (given the open-ended ‘comprising’ transitional phrase, any row of three or more vanes can be a group).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powers and Lin, as applied to claim 6 above, further in view of Hoffman (US 3,870,907).
Regarding claim 7: Powers and Lin disclose each group comprises a first, second and third row of vanes, but do not explicitly disclose a first row of vanes extending from a top or bottom portion of the channel wall and second and third rows of vanes extending from a side portion of the channel wall.
However, Hoffman discloses a first row of vanes extending from a top or bottom portion of the channel wall (extending from 19 in Fig. 3) and second and third rows of vanes extending from a side portion of the channel wall (5 rows of vanes 24 extending from the side wall in Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the vanes to extend from the side wall, as disclosed by Hoffman in order to increase the surface area of the vanes.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powers, in view of Sabo et al. (“Sabo”; US 2018/0245854).
Regarding claim 9: Powers discloses the radiator body, but does not explicitly disclose the radiator body is formed by additive manufacturing.
However, Sabo discloses the radiator body (100) is formed by additive manufacturing (paragraph 0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the radiator body of Powers to be additively manufactured, as disclosed by Sabo, in order to allow for improved heat transfer capability and structural rigidity (paragraph 0001).
Regarding claim 11: Powers discloses the vanes, but does not explicitly disclose the vanes are formed by additive manufacturing.
However, Sabo discloses the vanes (130) are formed by additive manufacturing (paragraph 0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the vanes of Powers to be additively manufactured, as disclosed by Sabo, in order to allow for improved heat transfer capability and structural rigidity (paragraph 0001).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powers, in view of Neal (US 2008/0017354).
Regarding claim 10: Powers discloses the radiator body, but does not explicitly disclose the radiator body is formed by a lost-wax casting method.
However, Neal discloses the radiator body is formed by a lost-wax casting method (paragraph 0080).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the radiator body of Powers to be formed by a lost-wax casting method, as disclosed by Neal, in order to allow for very close tolerances (paragraph 0080).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powers, in view of Pal et al. (“Pal”; US 2007/0018516).
Regarding claim 15: Powers discloses the rotary electric motor as claimed in claim 12, but does not explicitly disclose a motor in an aircraft.
However, Pal discloses a motor in an aircraft (paragraph 0002).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the motor of Powers to be in an aircraft, as disclosed by Pal, in order to allow for additional applications.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The prior art of record, alone or in combination does not explicitly teach, suggest, or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan the cooling structure of claim 8, specifically comprising:
wherein the second and third rows are arranged to be inclined towards each other at their distal ends, in the context of the other component in the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN GUGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-5343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00am - 5:00pm 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, T.C. Patel can be reached at 571 272 2098. 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.
/SEAN GUGGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights