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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4 states “are designed, convey fluid” which should read “are designed to convey fluid”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 6-8 each include limitations that state “can be …”. This creates a lack of clarity in the claims because it creates a lack of clarity as to whether the limitations following “can be” are required in the claim limitations or are optional limitations. Stating that the structure “can be” a certain thing does not explicitly require the structure to be that way but also does not clearly make the limitation optional. In order to expedite examination, the examiner is treating the limitations following “can be” as required limitations.
Claim 2 states “the flow channels formed by them radially outwards” but does not make it clear what “them” is in reference to and as such creates a lack of clarity in the claim.
Claims 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15 each include the limitations “in particular”. These create a lack of clarity in the claims as it becomes unclear if the limitations that follow “in particular” are required limitations or exemplary language to say something is preferable, which is unclear. Without definitive language requiring or not requiring the structure, the claim is indefinite. In order to expedite examination, the examiner is treating the limitations following “in particular” as required limitations.
Claim 1 line 8 states “extending around it” but does not make it clear what “it” is in reference to, rendering the limitation indefinite.
Claim 11 includes a number of repeated recitations of structures already set forth in claim 1 which claim 11 is dependent from, such as “a stator”, “a rotor”, and “an axis” even though these were already set forth in claim 1. This creates a lack of clarity as to if these are the same structures already recited or are new structures different that the structures of claim 1. It also creates doubt as to if every limitation of claim 1 is brought into claim 11 as is required or if just the wheel structure is intended to be brought in, which would raise new lack of clarity in the claims.
The remaining claims are rejected due to being dependent from claims 1 and 11.
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 (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 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) 1-6, 8-12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmezer (DE 102020004844) in view of Muller (US 20200080565).
Regarding claim 1, Schmezer discloses A cooling wheel for actively cooling a stator of an electric motor (Par. 0002), comprising:
the cooling wheel can be fixed in a rotationally fixed manner (Figure 1 shows the cooling wheel 1) adjacent to the stator (Figure 1, item 8) on a rotor of the electric motor which is rotatable about an axis of rotation (Figure 1, item 5) and has a bottom disc that extends orthogonally to the axis of rotation (Figure 1, item 17) with an annular radially inner portion (Figure 1, item 17 shows a radially inner side on the bottom) and a radially outer portion annularly extending around it (figure 1 item 17 shows a radially outer side on the top);
the cooling wheel has, in the axial direction adjacent to the radially outer portion of the bottom disc, a cover disc that annularly extends around the axis of rotation (figure 1, item 19) and a plurality of blades extending from the bottom disc to the cover disc and radially outwards (Figure 1, item 18);
a flow channel is formed between two immediately adjacent blades (figure 1 shows a flow channel between two adjacent blades 18), which is delimited by the two blades, a portion of the bottom disc located between the two blades and a portion of the cover disc located between the two blades (Figure 1 shows both the bottom disc and cover disc overlapping and covering the portion between the blades).
However, Schmezer does not explicitly disclose that the respective portion of the cover disc is designed to be arcuate in the circumferential direction and the cover disc has an undulating profile on its outer circumference.
Schmezer and Muller are analogous prior art because both describe impellers with inner and outer cover structures. Muller teaches an impeller with a cover disc where the respective portion of the cover disc is designed to be arcuate in the circumferential direction and the cover disc has an undulating profile on its outer circumference (Figures 1-2 item M, described as arcuate in paragraph 0024). Muller describes that the design of the undulating outer cover plate provides increased efficiency, improved stabilization of flow, and reduced noise generation (Pars. 0004-0005 and 0027). As Schmezer already shows an impeller structure that uses an outer cover for the impeller, the impeller shape of Muller would provide predictable results as the cover plate shape of Schmezer. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the cover plate undulating shape of Muller as the cover plate shape of Schmezer because the design of the undulating outer cover plate provides increased efficiency, improved stabilization of flow, and reduced noise generation (Pars. 0004-0005 and 0027) and simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 2, Schmezer in view of Muller teaches that the radially inner portion of the bottom disc and an area adjacent in the axial direction are free of the blades (Schmezer Figure 1 shows that a center portion of the bottom disc at and around 4 and between the blades are free of the cover and the blades) and the cover disc, can be arranged adjacent to the stator (Figure 1 shows the structure adjacent the stator 8) and the blades are designed to convey fluid from the radially inner portion of the bottom disc from the stator through the flow channels formed by them radially outwards (Figure 1 shows the blades convey fluid from the radial center at the stator 8 radially outwards away from the stator).
Regarding claim 3, Schmezer in view of Muller teaches that on the radially inner portion of the bottom disc, a continuous transition from radially outside to radially inside from a portion of the bottom disc which is orthogonal to the axis of rotation to a portion of the bottom disc which is parallel to the axis of rotation is designed so that a continuous suction contour is formed through the transition. Figure 1 of Schmezer shows the radially outer portion at 17 being orthogonal to the axis of rotation and the radially inner portion at 2 being parallel to the axis of rotation.. No specific limitations are given to what is a continuous suction contour or what specific shape is required to achieve that. Because the structure of Schmezer provides a continuous suction during operation of the fan it meets the limitations of a continuous suction contour. Further, there is no specific shape required or described for what meets the limitations of a “continuous transition” so because the transition between the inner and outer portions is uninterrupted, the limitations are met.
Regarding claim 4, Schmezer in view of Muller teaches that a curvature of the respective arcuate portion of the cover disc becomes larger from radially inside to radially outside (Muller Figure 3 shows the curvature of the cover disc by showing the axial width of the flow passage, showing that the curvature, e.g. the rate of change of the width, is greater radially outward of the radially inner portion).
Regarding claim 5, Schmezer in view of Muller teaches that the radially inner portion of the bottom disc has a continuous course and is in particular free of flow obstacles. As with above, the limitations of what is required for a “continuous course” are not clearly described nor are the limits of the radially inner portion. As such, item 2 of Schmezer meets the limitations of a radially inner portion with a continuous course and as can be seen in Figure 1 item 2 of Schmezer does not have any flow obstacles.
Regarding claim 6, Schmezer in view of Muller teaches that the radially inner portion of the bottom disc fastening elements are designed or can be arranged for fastening the bottom disc to the rotor or a flange ring which can be fixed to the rotor. Schmezer Figures 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 12 show fasteners 27 which are fixed to either the rotor 2 or a flange ring such as 21 or 62. There are no limitations in claim 6 that preclude item 2 from being interpreted as the rotor in this orientation.
Regarding claim 8, Schmezer in view of Muller teaches that the radially inner portion of the bottom disc, recesses are provided, that form depressions opposite a cover disc side surface of the bottom disc, into which the fastening elements can be arranged recessed. Schmezer Figures 4, 8, and 9 all show recesses on the cover disc side of the bottom disc where recesses are provided to hold the fastening elements in a recessed fashion.
Regarding claim 9, Schmezer in view of Muller teaches that the bottom disc has connection interfaces for connecting an impeller on a side facing away from the cover disc (The bolts shown in Schmezer Figures 1-12 connect an impeller on the side facing away from the cover disc to the rotor portions. As the bolts serve to connect the impeller to the rotor by pressing the rotor and impeller against each other on the side away from the cover then it connects the impeller on the side faxing away from the cover disc), wherein the connection interfaces are designed in particular as bolts extending parallel to the axis of rotation (Figures 1-12 show bolts 27 parallel to the axis of rotation for fixing the structures) or as pockets for receiving insert nuts.
Regarding claim 10, Schmezer in view of Muller teaches that the blades have a sickle blade geometry and curve from radially inside to radially outside in the circumferential direction (Muller Figures 1-3 and Schmezer Figures 1-12 both show that the blades have a sickle geometry with the required curve. This structure provides the airfoil shape to move the fluid).
Regarding claim 11, Schmezer in view of Muller teaches An electric motor with a stator, a rotor that is rotatable about an axis of rotation and a cooling wheel arranged on the rotor according to claim 1 for cooling the stator (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the electric motor is in particular designed as an external rotor motor (Schmezer shows the rotor external to the rotor), and
wherein the cooling wheel is arranged on an end portion of the rotor on the stator side in the axial direction and borders directly on the stator with the radially inner portion of the bottom disc (Figures 1-12 show the stator being radially inner the bottom disc and bordering the impeller with the impeller on a rotor end), so that when the rotor rotates, a fluid flow is generated from a portion of the stator adjacent to the radially inner portion of the bottom disc in the axial direction through the flow channels radially outwards (Figures 1-12 shows the impeller arranged to draw fluid from the radial interior and direct it radially outward through the flow channels. Figure 6 also shows holes in the top of the hub 2 that allow fluid from the stator to flow into the main channels).
Regarding claim 12, Schmezer in view of Muller teaches that the cooling wheel is fixed directly to the rotor with its bottom disc or wherein the cooling wheel is fixed with its bottom disc on a flange ring, that is fixed on the rotor. Schmezer Figure 1, item 22, Figure 4, item 21, Figure 6, item 21, and Figure 9, item 21 all show a variety of flange rings that are fixed on both the bottom disc and the rotor to fix the cooling wheel to the rotor.
Regarding claim 15, Schmezer in view of Muller teaches that the cooling wheel and in particular the bottom disc designs a labyrinth seal on a radially inner circumference with the stator. Schmezer Figures 1-12, item 41 shows a labyrinth formed on the bottom disc in the radially inner circumference area of the impeller plate.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmezer (DE 102020004844) in view of Muller (US 20200080565) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Bruestle (US 20170306829).
Regarding claim 7, Schmezer in view of Muller teaches the limitations of claim 6 as set forth in the above 103 rejection. However, Schmezer in view of Muller does not explicitly teach that a cover element can be arranged on a cover disc side surface of the bottom disc adjacent to the fastening elements, which is designed to cover the fastening element ,and to provide a continuous course that is in particular flat to the surface of the bottom disc on the cover disc side surface of the bottom disc.
Schmezer in view of Muller and Bruestle are analogous prior art because both describe impeller structures fixed with bolts. Bruestle teaches a cover element on a cover disc side surface of the bottom disc adjacent the fastening elements that covers the fastening element and provides a continuous course that is flat to the surface of the bottom disc (Figure 3, items 56 and 45 combine to form a cover element that covers the fastener heads). Bruestle describes that the covering hood directs the airflow and covers the screw structures (Par. 0008). Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the cover of Bruestle over the fasteners of Schmezer in view of Muller because the covering hood directs the airflow and covers the screw structures (Par. 0008) which provides improved airflow.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: With regards to claims 13, Schmezer does not teach or disclose cooling fins on the stator that are distributed in the circumferential direction and are arranged in the axial direction adjacent the radially inner portion of the cooling wheel and extending in the radial direction. Specifically, Schmezer shows no structure of the stator that is distributed around the circumferential direction of the stator and provides the required structure for the fins. Schmezer Figure 6 shows structures of the stator but does not show any circumferentially distributed elements that might meet these limitations as elements such as 35 appear to be annular in form. No other prior art was found that provided the limitations required or any clear rationale as to why such a structure might be beneficial in Schmezer in view of Muller.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA whose telephone number is (469)295-9164. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00 (CT).
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, Nathan Wiehe can be reached at (571)-272-8648. 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.
/THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights