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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, page 6 lines 6 – 24, page 7 lines 1 – 17, and page 8 lines 5 – 19, with respect to claims 1, 4 – 5, and 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claims 1 and 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf et al. in view of Park et al. (US 20170353092 A1), Claims 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf et al. in view of Park et al. and further in view of Yang et al., and Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf et al. in view of Park et al., Yang et al., and further in view of Radl et al. (US 20210242746 A1).
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 10, 13, 17, and 20 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.
Regarding Claim 10, line 1 states “The electric machine of claim 9”. Since Applicant has cancelled claim 9, it is unclear whether the Applicant meant to amend this claim to depend on claim 8 or have this claim depend on another claim therefore, the claim is rejected. For the purposes of examination, “The electric machine of claim 9” will be construed to “The electric machine of claim 8”.
Regarding Claim 13, it has the same unclear structure as presented above in claim 10 and will be construed the same as presented above.
Regarding Claim 17, line 1 states “The method of claim 16”. Since Applicant has cancelled claim 16, it is unclear whether the Applicant meant to amend this claim to depend on claim 15 or have this claim depend on another claim therefore, the claim is rejected. For the purposes of examination, “The electric machine of claim 16” will be construed to “The electric machine of claim 15”.
Regarding Claim 20, it has the same unclear structure as presented above in claim 17 and will be construed the same as presented above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
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.
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 1 and 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf et al. in view of Park et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Wolf et al. discloses a wound field rotor (1) (Wolf et al. Fig. 1), comprising: a shaft (3) defining a longitudinal axis (Wolf et al. Fig. 1);
a plurality of laminations (forming cylindrical laminated stack 2) mounted to an outer surface of the shaft (Wolf et al. Fig. 2) and including rotor teeth (laminated stack projections 4) defining an axial channel along the longitudinal axis (Wolf et al. Fig. 2);
a plurality of field windings (rotor windings 9) disposed in the axial channel (Wolf et al. Fig. 2);
and a field separator (pole separator 10) disposed in the axial channel to secure the plurality of field windings in the axial channel (Wolf et al. Fig. 2),
PNG
media_image1.png
408
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the field separator including a post (see below in annotated Wolf et al. Fig. 1) at an axial end of the field separator (Wolf et al. Fig. 1), the post having a passage (cooling channel 13) therethrough to allow a fluid to flow out of the axial channel (Wolf et al. Fig. 1) and into a side channel at an end of the rotor (Wolf et al. Para [0045] first sentence discloses an outlet can be formed within the end cap 15 of the rotor 1).
Wolf et al. does not disclose:
wherein the field separator includes an axially extending rail supported at a first end by the post,
the axially extending rail including a first radially inward surface which is located radially outward from a second radially inward surface of the post.
Park et al. discloses:
wherein the field separator (wedge member 50) includes an axially extending rail (second portion 65) supported at a first end by the post (axial end of support 51) (Park et al. Fig. 4),
PNG
media_image2.png
546
500
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the axially extending rail including a first radially inward surface which is located radially outward from a second radially inward surface of the post (see below in annotated Park et al. Fig. 4).
Wolf et al. and Park et al. disclose pole wedges therefore, Park et al. constitute as prior art. Park et al. discloses a wedge member comprising a support located radially inward and a coupler located radially outward. It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the field separator includes an axially extending rail supported at a first end by the post and the axially extending rail including a first radially inward surface which is located radially outward from a second radially inward surface of the post of Park et al. for the purpose of radially securing the field separators respectively disposed in the axial channels between the rotor teeth.
Regarding Claim 7, The wound field rotor of claim 1, wherein the post further comprising a first post at a first axial end of the field separator and a second post at a second axial end of the field separator (see above in annotated Wolf et al. Fig. 1).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf et al. in view of Park et al. and further in view of Yang et al.
Regarding Claim 4, Wolf et al. and Park et al. discloses the wound field rotor of claim 1.
Wolf et al. and Park et al. does not disclose:
wherein the side channel extends circumferentially around a rotor shaft of the rotor.
Yang et al. discloses:
wherein the side channel (outlet 46) extends circumferentially (Yang et al. Fig. 3) around a rotor shaft (central shaft 18) of the rotor (20) (Yang et al. Fig. 4).
Wolf et al., Park et al., and Yang et al. disclose side channels therefore, Yang et al. constitutes as prior art. Yang et al. discloses a pair of rotor end rings having a plurality of outlets extending circumferentially around a rotor shaft. It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the side channel extends circumferentially around a rotor shaft of the rotor of Yang et al. for the purpose of allowing the coolant to be more evenly spread around the face of the rotor, providing better cooling.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf et al. in view of Park et al., Yang et al., and further in view of Radl et al.
Regarding Claim 5, Wolf et al., Park et al., and Yang et al. disclose the wound field rotor of claim 4, further comprising a balance ring (end caps 14, 15) (Wolf et al. Fig. 1) that secures the post to at least one of the plurality of laminations (see above in annotated Wolf et al. 1).
Wolf et al. and does not disclose:
the balance ring having a lip extending axially over a radially outer surface of the post,
the lip having an escape hole to allow the fluid from the side channel out of the rotor.
Wolf et al. and Park et al. structurally disclose:
the balance ring (of Wolf et al. Fig. 1) having a lip (of Park et al. Fig 2 discloses an end coil cover 70 having a lip) extending axially over a radially outer surface of the post (of Park et al. Fig. 2 and Fig. 3).
Radl et al. discloses:
a circumferential lip (140) around an outer circumference of an endplate with openings aligned with channels of the endplates (Radl et al. Fig. 4).
Yang et al. and Radl et al. structurally disclose:
the lip (140) having an escape hole (of Radl et al. Para [0046] lines 9 – 10) to allow the fluid from the side channel out of the rotor (of Yang et al. Fig. 4).
Wolf et al., Park et al., Yang et al., and Radl et al. disclose end plates therefore, Radl et al. constitute as prior art. Radl et al. discloses an endplate with a circumferential lip having openings that align with channels of the endplate. It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the balance ring having a lip extending axially over a radially outer surface of the post of structurally disclosed Wolf et al. and Park et al. and the lip having an escape hole to allow the fluid from the side channel out of the rotor of structurally disclosed Yang et al. and Radl et al. for the purpose of 1) radially securing the axial post of the field separators inside respective axial channels and 2) for transporting fluid from the side channel of the rotor shaft to the windings of the stator and cool the stator via the escape hole in the lid.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 3 and 6 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.
Claims 8, 11 – 12, 14 – 15, and 18 – 19 allowed.
Claims 10, 13, 17, and 20 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:
Regarding Claim 2, the prior art discloses various wound field rotors having field separators with cooling passages therethrough. However, the structure in combination with previously recited features, having wherein the axially extending passage intersects the at least one circumferentially extending passage in a body of the post is not disclosed/suggested in the prior art. Thus, the invention recited above is neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by the prior art.
Regarding Claims 3 and 6, they are allowable because of their dependency on allowable claim 2.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
PNG
media_image3.png
490
784
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, the prior art does not anticipate or render obvious the electrical machine, comprising: wherein the axially extending passage (1028, 1302 respectively) intersects the at least one circumferentially extending passage (indicated by openings 1030, 1040 respectively) in a body of the post (1004, 1006 respectively) in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Regarding Claims 10 and 13, because of the 112b rejections indicated above, they are objected.
Regarding Claims 11 – 12 and 14, they are allowed because of their dependency on allowed claim 8 or allowed on another claim dependent on allowed claim 8 .
Regarding Claim 15, it has the same allowed structure as presented above in allowed claim 8.
Regarding Claims 17 and 20, because of the 112b rejections indicated above, they are objected.
Regarding Claims 18 – 19, they are allowed because of their dependency on allowed claim 15 or allowed on another claim dependent on allowed claim 15.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE L PERKINS whose telephone number is (703)756-4629. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am- 17:00pm.
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, Christopher Koehler can be reached on (571) 272-3560. 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 L PERKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TERRANCE L KENERLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights