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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 31 December 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the “one or more nozzle recesses 311” and the “individual duct recesses 313” as described in the specification. The reference numbers 311 and 313 in Fig.3b point to the same structure and seem to show a single annular nozzle or duct recess.
PNG
media_image1.png
428
567
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 17 & 19 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.
In claim 17, “…and the end-face stator lamination has one or more duct recesses which are each configured to form, together with the flat end face of the stator body, one or more corresponding end-face coolant ducts between the at least one axial coolant duct and the one or more nozzle recesses when the end-face stator lamination is arranged at the flat end face of the stator body” is vague and indefinite. It is unclear what the “one or more duct recesses” structure means, in particular the difference between the duct recess and the nozzle recess. Claim 13 recites that the nozzle recess forms, together with the flat end face of the stator body, “one or more corresponding cavities for holding coolant when the end-face stator lamination is arranged at the flat end face of the stator body”. The duct recesses 313 formed between the at least one axial coolant duct 305 and the one or more nozzle recesses 311 also hold coolant since they route coolant 130 from the coolant ducts 305 to the nozzle recesses 311 per the specification ¶[0056]. The drawings, in particular Fig.3b, does not indicate or distinguish the boundaries of the duct recess, e.g., where the duct recess ends and the nozzle recess begins.
In claim 19, recitation “the holes” lacks antecedent basis and is inconsistent with claim 13 recitation “at least one hole…”
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 13-15, 17 & 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (CN 112615445).
Regarding claim 13, with reference to the corresponding English-language publication US Pat.Pub.2023/0318370, Liu teaches an end-face stator lamination 1 (end cap/end plate) 41 for a stator body (core) 20 of a stator of an electric machine, wherein the end-face stator lamination is configured to be arranged at a flat end face of the stator body;
the end-face stator lamination has one or more nozzle recesses (spacing) 415 which are each configured to form, together with the flat end face of the stator body 20, one or more corresponding cavities (between bumps 414) for holding coolant when the end-face stator lamination 41 is arranged at the flat end face of the stator body 20 (¶[0182]); and
the end-face stator lamination has, at each of the one or more nozzle recesses, at least one hole (nozzle) 411 which is configured to form a coolant jet with coolant from a respective cavity (i.e., cooling oil sprayed from nozzle 411 to first end part 31 of coil winding with a pressure; ¶[0144]; Figs.21-23).
PNG
media_image2.png
562
427
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
450
305
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, the end-face stator lamination 41 has a plurality of nozzle recesses (spacings) 415 which are arranged running circumferentially and distributed uniformly, about a longitudinal axis of the stator body 20; and the end-face stator lamination includes 4 or more nozzle recesses 415 (Fig.17).
Regarding claim 15, the end-face stator lamination 41 includes 8 or more nozzle recesses 415 (Fig.17).
Regarding claim 17, the stator body 20 has at least one axial coolant duct (oil channel) 101 extending in an axial direction; and the end-face stator lamination 41 has one or more duct recesses (part of spacings 415 adjacent oil channels 101) which are each configured to form, together with the flat end face of the stator body, one or more corresponding end-face coolant ducts between the at least one axial coolant duct 101 and the one or more nozzle recesses 415 when the end-face stator lamination is arranged at the flat end face of the stator body (Fig.23).
Regarding claim 19, the stator has, at the flat end face of the stator body 20 at which the end-face stator lamination is arranged, a winding head 31 which projects in an axial direction beyond the flat end face of the stator body; and the holes of the one or more nozzle recesses 415 are each configured to produce a coolant jet directed onto the winding head when the end-face stator lamination is arranged at the flat end face of the stator body (i.e., cooling oil sprayed from nozzle 411 to first end part 31 of coil winding with a pressure; ¶[0144]; Fig.21).
Regarding claim 20, a product-by-process claim, per MPEP 2113 (I) product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. "[E]ven 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, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Here, the claimed end face stator lamination is the same as Liu’s flat end face stator lamination (end cap/plate) and is thus unpatentable even if Liu’s laminations were made by a different process.
Regarding claim 21, Liu teaches a stator body for a stator of an electric machine, the stator body comprising: a base body with a plurality of flat stator laminations (core 20), wherein the base body extends from a first outer end face as far as an opposite second outer end face; and a first end-face stator lamination (end cap/plate) 41 which is configured according to claim 13 and which is arranged at the first outer end face of the base body; and/or a second end-face stator lamination (end cap/plate) 41 which is configured according to claim 13 and which is arranged at the second outer end face of the base body (Fig.22).
Regarding claim 22, the base body (core 20) has at least one axial coolant duct (oil channel) 101 which runs in an axial direction through the base body; and the first and/or second end-face stator lamination (end cap) 41/42 is in each case configured to route coolant from the at least one axial coolant duct to the one or more nozzle recesses (spacings) 415/425 of the respective end-face stator lamination 41/42 (¶[0143]; Figs.21-22).
Regarding claim 23, the stator core 20 comprises a first part-body and a second part-body (not numbered, halves of stator core), each of which includes one or more axial coolant ducts 101 which are arranged one behind another in an axial direction; and a stator component (oil filling port) 11, arranged between the first part-body and the second part-body, which is configured to route coolant from outside the stator body into the one or more axial coolant ducts of the first and second part-body (¶[0139]-¶[0142]; Fig.25).
Regarding claim 24, the stator body includes a first winding head 31 arranged at the first end-face stator lamination and/or a second winding head 32 arranged at the second end-face stator lamination; wherein at least one of the first end-face stator lamination and the second end-face stator lamination are configured to produce coolant jets with coolant onto the respective winding head (¶[0144]; Fig.22&25).
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 13-15 & 17-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dlala et al. (US 11,535,097) in view of Cherney (US 9,148,034).
Regarding claim 13, Dlala teaches an end-face stator lamination (single outermost lamination) 1113 for a stator body (lamination stack) of a stator 1103 of an electric machine, wherein the end-face stator lamination is configured to be arranged at a flat end face of the stator body…; and
the end-face stator lamination has…at least one hole (channel) 1111 which is configured to form a coolant jet with coolant from a respective cavity (i.e., due to the minimal overlap between channels 1109 and 1111, i.e., regions 1115, the restriction causes a velocity increase in the coolant ejected from the stator…[and] the ejected coolant impinges on the stator end windings; c.11:23-53; Fig.11).
PNG
media_image4.png
546
511
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Dlala’s end-face stator lamination 1113 does not have “one or more nozzle recesses which are each configured to form, together with the flat end face of the stator body one or more corresponding cavities for holding coolant when the end-face stator lamination is arranged at the flat end face of the stator body”, with the hole 1111 “at each of the one or more nozzle recesses”.
But, Cherney teaches a system for cooling an electrical machine including end-face stator laminations (endplate) 16 configured to be arranged at a flat end face of a stator body (lamination stack) 20; the end-face stator lamination has one or more nozzle recesses (facets) 72 which are each configure to form one or more corresponding cavities (pooling vessels) 73 for holding coolant when the end-face stator lamination is arranged at the flat end face of the stator body, the facets further comprising a hole (not numbered) at teach of the one or more nozzle recesses (Fig.4). The nozzle recesses/facets of Cherney’s end plate are sized, shaped and located such that cooling fluid exiting therefrom is directed onto end windings (c.1:50-58; c.4:14-16).
PNG
media_image5.png
545
686
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Dlala’s end-face stator lamination with one or more nozzle recesses which are each configured to form one or more corresponding cavities for holding coolant when the end-face stator lamination is arranged at the flat end face of the stator body, with the hole at each of the one or more nozzle recesses, since Cherney teaches they would have enabled fluid to be directed onto end windings. Further, in the combination, due to the minimal overlap between the channels 1109 in core and channels 1111 in end-face stator lamination 1113 of Dlala, Cherney’s nozzle recesses/facets form the corresponding cavities together with the flat end face of the stator body.
Regarding claim 14, in Cherney the end-face stator lamination have a plurality of nozzle recesses 72 which are arranged running circumferentially and distributed uniformly, about a longitudinal axis of the stator body; and the end-face stator lamination includes 4 or more nozzle recesses (Fig.2).
Regarding claim 15, in Cherney the end- face stator lamination includes 8 or more nozzle recesses (Fig.2).
Regarding claim 17, Dlala’s stator body has at least one axial coolant duct 1109 extending in an axial direction and Cherney has at least one axial coolant duct 52 (Fig.4) such that in the combination the end-face stator lamination has one or more duct recesses which are each configured to form, together with the flat end face of the stator body, one or more corresponding end-face coolant ducts between the at least one axial coolant duct and the one or more nozzle recesses when the end-face stator lamination is arranged at the flat end face of the stator body.
Regarding claim 18, Dlala’s end-face stator lamination has a stator yoke region and a plurality of stator tooth regions; the stator yoke region forms part of a stator yoke of the stator body and the plurality of stator tooth regions form part of a corresponding plurality of stator teeth of the stator body when the end-face stator lamination is arranged at the flat end face of the stator body (Figs.8&10). Further, in the combination, the one or more nozzle recesses of Cherney would be arranged in the stator yoke region, to correspond to the location of the axial cooling ducts 1109 of Dlala.
Regarding claim 19, Dlala teaches the stator has, at the flat end face of the stator body at which the end-face stator lamination is arranged, a winding head (end windings) which projects in an axial direction beyond the flat end face of the stator body (c.11:48). Cherney teaches a similar structure. In the combination, the holes of the one or more nozzle recesses of Cherney are each configured to produce a coolant jet directed onto the winding head when the end-face stator lamination is arranged at the flat end face of the stator body (Cherney, c.1:55-58).
Regarding claim 20, a product-by-process claim, per MPEP 2113 (I) product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. "[E]ven 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, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Here, the claimed end face stator lamination is the same as the combination. Arguendo, even the method of deep-drawing recesses in flat metal sheets of stator laminations is construed to impart some structure, Turner et al. (GB 2419475) teaches deep-drawing protrusions 11 in stator laminations 18 using a pressing tool and die (abstract).
Regarding claim 21, Dlala’s stator body comprises a base body with a plurality of flat stator laminations, wherein the base body extends from a first outer end face as far as an opposite second outer end face; and a first end-face stator lamination 1111 arranged at the first outer end face of the base body; and/or a second end-face stator lamination 1111 arranged at the second outer end face of the base body (Fig.11). Cherney teaches a similar structure (Fig.4).
Regarding claim 22, in Dlala the base body has at least one axial coolant duct 1109 which runs in an axial direction through the base body (Fig.11). Cherney teaches a similar structure (Fig.4). Further, in the combination, the first and/or second end-face stator lamination is in each case configured to route coolant from the at least one axial coolant duct to the one or more nozzle recesses of the respective end-face stator lamination of Cherney.
Regarding claim 23, Dlala teaches a first part-body and a second part-body (i.e., halves of stator 1103), each of which includes one or more axial coolant ducts 1109 which are arranged one behind another in an axial direction; and a stator component (coolant intake) 1127, arranged between the first part-body and the second part-body, which is configured to route coolant from outside the stator body into the one or more axial coolant ducts of the first and second part-body (Fig.11). Cherney teaches a similar structure (Fig.4).
Regarding claim 24, Dlala teaches a first winding head arranged at the first end-face stator lamination and/or a second winding head arranged at the second end-face stator lamination; wherein at least one of the first end-face stator lamination and the second end-face stator lamination are configured to produce coolant jets with coolant onto the respective winding head (c.11:45-48; Fig.11). Cherney teaches a similar structure (Fig.4).
Regarding claim 25, Dlala teaches the electric machine is configured to: route coolant, starting from an outer shell surface of the stator body of the stator (via intake 1127), into one or more axial coolant ducts 1109 of the stator body of the stator, at a location arranged centrally in an axial direction, between two part-bodies of the stator body; and collect coolant, from the one or more axial coolant ducts, which has been used to cool a winding head of the stator, at at least one end face of the stator body of the stator 1103 (i.e., after cooling the end windings, the coolant passes through the motor case 1117 and is collected in coolant pan 1119, Fig.11). Cherney teaches a similar structure (Fig.5).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu or Dlala & Cherney as applied to claim 14, further in view of Joshi et al. (US 11,909,262).
Liu and Dlala & Cherney do not teach that “a position and/or an orientation of the at least one hole differs in two different nozzle recesses of the plurality of nozzle recesses; and/or the at least one hole of a first nozzle recess of the plurality of nozzle recesses is oriented toward a centrally extending longitudinal axis of the stator body.”
But, at least with respect to the second alternative limitation, Joshi teaches thermal management for generator/motor stators including a coolant circuit 124 that passes oil through the stator core 110 and includes a hole (spray orifice/nozzle) 158/162 that is oriented toward a centrally extending longitudinal axis A of the stator so as to direct coolant onto end windings 112 for additional cooling and lower stator winding temperatures (c.4:c.14-36; Fig.5).
PNG
media_image6.png
462
591
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to orient the at least one hole of a first nozzle recess of the plurality of nozzle recesses of Liu or Dlala & Cherney toward a centrally extending longitudinal axis of the stator body since Joshi teaches this would have been provided additional cooling and lower stator winding temperatures.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim 21, further in view of Cherney (US 9,148,034).
Liu’s electric machine is configured to route coolant, starting from an outer shell surface of the stator body (core) 20 of the stator, into one or more axial coolant ducts 101 of the stator body of the stator, at a location arranged centrally in an axial direction, between two part-bodies of the stator body (i.e., via oil filling port 11 located centrally between two halves of stator body; Fig.25), but does not further teach collecting coolant that has been used to cool a winding head 31/32 from the one or more axial coolant ducts 101, “at at least one end face of the stator body of the stator.”
But, Cherney teaches a system for cooling an electrical motor 10 wherein cooling fluid travels from a source tank S into cooling tubes 60 of a stator lamination stack 20, is sprayed out of facets 72 onto end windings of coil 22 and is subsequently collected in a destination tank D at one end face of the stator which cools the heated fluid and recycles it back to source tank S (c.4:26-39; Fig.5).
It would thus have been obvious before the effective filing date to collect coolant that has been used to cool a winding head from the one or more axial coolant ducts of Liu at at least one end face of the stator body of the stator since Cherney teaches this would have enabled cooling and recycling of the heated fluid.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BURTON S MULLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2029. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5. 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, Tulsidas 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.
/BURTON S MULLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
1 The term “end-face stator lamination” is construed broadly as a layer at an end of the stator.
Prosecution Insights