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
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 1-4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Almeida E Silva et al. (US 2022/0014062 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Almeida”).
RE claim 1, Almeida teaches an apparatus (Figs.1, 2) comprising: a cooling tube 10 including a proximal end 14a having a first opening 42a and a distal end 14b having a second opening 42b, wherein the cooling tube 10 includes an intermediate portion (Fig.1) extending between the proximal end 14a and the distal end 14b; and an interface component 62 (K2) disposed on an exterior interface of the intermediate portion and at least partially encapsulating the cooling tube 10 (Fig.3), the interface component 11 composed of an electrically insulating and thermally conductive material (plastic, see ¶ 9, 68), wherein the interface component 62K (K2) is in abutting contact with one or more heat conducting 7 or heat generating elements 60a, 65a of an electromechanical device 1.
RE claim 2/1, Almeida teaches the interface component 62(K2) comprises a first portion (P1) and a second portion (P2) (see annotated Fig.3).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (P2)][AltContent: textbox (P1)]
PNG
media_image1.png
1154
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
RE claim 3/1, Almeida teaches the first portion (P1) further comprises a first interface (P1) and the second portion (P2) further comprises a second interface (P2), wherein the first interface and the second interface are in contact with the cooling tube 10 (Fig.3).
RE claim 4/2, Almeida teaches the first portion (P1) and the second portion (P2) are mirror images of each other (Fig.3).
RE claim 12, Almeida teaches a system 1 (Figs.1-3) comprising: a stator 2 having a plurality of slots 9 (¶ 65-67), a heat source (windings 60b, 65b or teeth 8a, 8b) abutting at least one of the plurality of slots 9; and a cooling tube 10 disposed within each of the plurality of slots 9, wherein the cooling tube 10 is encapsulated by an electrically insulating and thermally conductive material 11 disposed between the cooling tube 10 and the each of the slots 9 (Figs.1-3).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almeida in view of Arita et al. (US 2023/0044024 A1).
RE claim 5/2, Almeida has been discussed above. Almeida does not teach a width of the first portion is less than or equal to a width of the second portion.
However, Almeida’s Fig.3 appeared to suggestion that width of first portion (P1) is equal to a width of the second portion (P2) (see Fig.3).
Arita suggests that width of cooling tube portion can be adjusted to improve cooling efficiency and thermal uniform state can be achieved (¶ 58).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Almeida by having a width of the first portion is less than or equal to a width of the second portion, as suggested by Arita, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size or shape of a component. A change in size or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 E 3SPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 6-10 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almeida in view of Stevens et al. (US 2007/0026221 A1).
RE claims 6-10, Almeida has been discussed above. Almeida does not teach electrically insulating and thermally conductive material comprise Boron-Nitride, Silicon-Carbide, non-homogeneous composite, crystalline, metallic material or Boron-Carbide as recited in claims 6-10.
However, Almeida suggests that the electrically insulating and thermally conductive material can be any different suitable material (¶ 86).
Stevens suggests that material as claimed in claims 6-10 as recited are well-known in the art for having high thermal conductivity (¶ 37, 86) and different material can be optimized to provide positive effect on thermal conductivity (¶ 61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Almeida by having electrically insulating and thermally conductive material comprise Boron-Nitride, Silicon-Carbide, non-homogeneous composite, crystalline, metallic material or Boron-Carbide as recited in claims 6-10, as suggested by Stevens, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, one ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 13-16 are rejected for similar reason as claims 6-10.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almeida in view of Arai et al. (US 2020/0244144 A1).
RE claim 11/1, Almeida in view of Arai has been discussed above. Almeida does not teach embedded fibers or rods disposed within the electrically insulating and thermally conductive material.
Arai teaches embedded fibers 25 or rods disposed within the electrically insulating and thermally conductive material 24 (¶ 36), thereby further improving the heat dissipation in such a type of electric motor (¶ 34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Almeida by having embedded fibers or rods disposed within the electrically insulating and thermally conductive material, as taught by Arai, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almeida E Silva et al. (US 20220014062 A1) in view of Stevens et al. (US 2007/0026221 A1).
RE claim 17, Almeida teaches a system comprising: a stator 2 having a plurality of slots 9 (¶ 65, 67); a heat source (windings 60b, 65b or teeth 8a, 8b) abutting at least one of the plurality of slots 9; and a cooling tube 10 disposed within each of the plurality of slots 9, wherein the cooling tube 10 is encapsulated by an electrically insulating and thermally conductive material 11 forming an interface between the cooling tube 10 and each of the slots 9.
While Almeida teaches the cooling was utilized in a stator instead of rotor as claimed, Stevens suggests that improvement to remove heat from stator can be utilized to be made to rotor so that efficiency can be maximize (¶ 63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Almeida by utilizing the cooling system as disclosed by Almeida to a rotor, as suggested by Stevens, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claims 18-20, Almeida has been discussed above. Almeida does not teach electrically insulating and thermally conductive material comprise Boron-Nitride, Silicon-Carbide or Boron-Carbide as recited in claims 18-20.
However, Almeida suggests that the electrically insulating and thermally conductive material can be any different suitable material (¶ 86).
Stevens suggests that material as claimed in claims 6-10 as recited are well-known in the art for having high thermal conductivity (¶ 37, 86) and different material can be optimized to provide positive effect on thermal conductivity (¶ 61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Almeida by having electrically insulating and thermally conductive material comprise Boron-Nitride, Silicon-Carbide or Boron-Carbide as recited in claims 6-10, as suggested by Stevens, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, one ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM 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 at (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 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.
/THOMAS TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights