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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10-12, 14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Striedelmeyer et al. (DE102020200197, “Striedelmeyer”).
Re claim 10, Striedelmeyer discloses a rotor shaft for a rotor of an electric machine ([0001]) comprising:
a tubular hollow shaft configured to support a rotor core of the rotor and to conduct a cooling fluid in a cavity 2 that is enclosed by an outer wall 1 of the hollow shaft (figs 7a-b, [0026-0028] & [0038], employing embodiment of figs 7a-b but has similar structure to fig 1 except for shoulder 22 & ring shaped element 16), wherein the outer wall 1 has, in order to discharge the cooling fluid on two axially opposite sides of the rotor shaft into a surrounding area (figs 1 & 7a, [0028]), at least one first radial outlet opening 7 in a first end portion 4 of the outer wall 1 and at least one second radial outlet opening 8 in an axially opposite second end portion 5 of the outer wall 1 (figs 1 & 7a); and
an inflow region 6 for the cooling fluid which is arranged in the region of the first end portion 4 in the hollow shaft (fig 7a, [0027]),
wherein the inflow region 6 is divided by at least one axially extending dividing wall into at least two chambers configured to split the cooling fluid into at least two parallel cooling fluid flows (figs 7a-b & below, [0038]),
wherein a first chamber is closed axially by a bottom wall that forms an axial baffle wall for a first cooling fluid flow (figs 7a-b & below, [0038]), the bottom wall preventing the first cooling fluid flow from flowing out of the first chamber into the cavity 2 toward the second end portion 5 such that the first cooling fluid flow remains in a region of the first end portion 4 and is deflected radially by the baffle wall (figs 7a-b & below, [0038]), the first chamber being coupled fluidically to the at least one first radial outlet opening 7 for the radial discharge of the first cooling fluid flow on a first side of the rotor shaft (figs 7a-b & below, [0038]), and
wherein a second chamber is configured without a bottom so that a second cooling fluid flow flows axially through the second chamber into the cavity 2 (figs 7a-b & below, [0038], portion w/ 17 does not have a bottom) and through the cavity 2 towards the second end portion 5 (figs 7a-b & below, [0038]), the second chamber being coupled fluidically to the at least one second radial outlet opening 8 for the radial discharge of the second cooling fluid flow on a second side of the rotor shaft (figs 1, 7a-b & below).
PNG
media_image1.png
649
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
388
478
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 11, Striedelmeyer discloses claim 10 as discussed above and further discloses the at least one dividing wall is arranged centrally in the inflow region and divides the inflow region into two chambers of identical size (figs 7a-b & above for claim 10).
Re claim 12, Striedelmeyer discloses claim 10 as discussed above and further discloses the inflow region 6 has a side wall that runs around in a circumferential direction, is connected to the at least one dividing wall (figs 7a-b, above for claim 10 & below, circumferential wall of 16), is arranged so as to bear against an inner side of the outer wall 1 (figs 7a-b & below, [0038]), and has, in a region of the first chamber, at least one radial through opening for the first cooling fluid flow that is arranged aligned with respect to the at least one first radial outlet opening 7 (figs 7a & below).
PNG
media_image3.png
649
576
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re claim 14, Striedelmeyer discloses claim 12 as discussed above and further discloses the inflow region 6 is arranged on a transmission side of the hollow shaft (fig 1, [0030], 21 gearbox housing), and additionally configures a coupling region for coupling to a transmission of a motor vehicle ([0002] & [0030], end of shaft capable of coupling to a transmission).
Re claim 17, Striedelmeyer discloses claim 10 as discussed above and further discloses a rotor for an electric machine comprising:
a rotor core ([0003]);
a magnetic field-generating component that is held by the rotor core ([0003], rotor winding); and
the rotor shaft according to claim 10.
Re claim 18, Striedelmeyer discloses claim 17 as discussed above and further discloses an electric machine for a motor vehicle comprising:
a stator ([0001]); and the rotor according to claim 17 that is mounted rotatably with regard to the stator ([0001], inherent for a rotor mounted on a shaft).
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Striedelmeyer in view of Krais et al. (US20200036248, “Krais”).
Re claim 13, Striedelmeyer discloses claim 10 as discussed above but is silent with respect to a seal element configured to prevent a discharge of the second cooling fluid flow which is situated in the cavity via the at least one first radial outlet opening, wherein the seal element is arranged between the inner side of the outer wall and an outer side of the side wall in an axial direction between the at least one first radial outlet opening and the second end portion.
Krais discloses a seal element 43 configured to prevent a discharge of the second cooling fluid flow 20 which is situated in the cavity 9 via the at least one first radial outlet opening 24 (fig 1, [0076]), wherein the seal element 43 is arranged between the inner side of the outer wall 4 and an outer side of the side wall 10 (fig 1, [0062 & [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the inner side of the outer wall and outer side of the side wall of Striedelmeyer to have a seal element configured to prevent a discharge of the second cooling fluid flow which is situated in the cavity via the at least one first radial outlet opening, wherein the seal element is arranged between the inner side of the outer wall and an outer side of the side wall, as disclosed by Krais in order to seal shaft section of the shaft with respect to one another, as taught by Krais ([0076]).
It is pointed out that the combination of Striedelmeyer in view of Krais discloses the seal element is arranged between the inner side of the outer wall and an outer side of the side wall in an axial direction between the at least one first radial outlet opening and the second end portion since: Striedelmeyer discloses the inner side of the outer wall 1 and the outer side of the side wall bear against each other in an axial direction between the first radial outlet opening 7 and the second end portion 5 (figs 1, 7a-b & above for claim 12); and Krais discloses locating the seal element 43 between the inner side of the outer wall 4 and the outer side of the side wall 10 (fig 1).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Striedelmeyer in view of Reichert et al. (US20200295628, “Reichert”).
Re claim 15, Striedelmeyer discloses claim 10 as discussed above but is silent with respect to the hollow shaft is tapered in a region of the first end portion.
Reichert discloses the hollow shaft 34 is tapered in a region of the first end portion 38 (figs 1, 2b & below).
PNG
media_image4.png
472
584
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 hollow shaft of Striedelmeyer to be tapered in a region of the first end portion, as disclosed by Reichert, in order to form a stopper for the rotor, as demonstrated by Reichert.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Striedelmeyer.
Re claim 16, Striedelmeyer discloses claim 10 as discussed above but is silent with respect to an inner side, facing the cavity, of the outer wall has cooling fins that extend in a circumferential direction and are arranged spaced apart axially from one another.
Striedelmeyer discloses in another embodiment an inner side, facing the cavity 2, of the outer wall 1 has cooling fins 19 that extend in a circumferential direction and are arranged spaced apart axially from one another (fig 9, [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the inner side of the outer wall of Striedelmeyer to have cooling fins that extend in a circumferential direction and are arranged spaced apart axially from one another, as disclosed by Striedelmeyer in another embodiment, in order to further promote the flow of coolant, as taught by Striedelmeyer ([0041]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Striedelmeyer does not disclose the structure to form the first cooling fluid flow and second cooling fluid flow as claimed (pg 6, 2nd to last paragraph to pg 7, ln 7). Examiner disagrees.
As discussed above for claim 10 Striedelmeyer does disclose the bottom wall of the first chamber prevent the first cooling fluid flow from entering the cavity 2 and causes the first cooling fluid flow to exit the first chamber through 7 (figs 7a-b & above for claim 1). Specifically the cooling fluid entering the 1st chamber does not enter the cavity 2 because of the bottom wall formed by 16. In a similar manner the second cooling fluid flow entering the second chamber enters the cavity 2 but does not exit 7.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5715. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30-5pm 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, Seye Iwarere can be reached on (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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/ERIC JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights