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 30 October 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In ¶[0015], “leakage of the refrigerant is worried” and “..from the viewpoint of insulation, but Automatic Transmission Fluid (ATF) is used…” are not idiomatic. In ¶[0016], “…a gap between the steel plate and the steel plate...” is not idiomatic.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sugimoto et al. (US 8,400,029).
Sugimoto teaches a motor 1 comprising: a rotor 7; a stator core 4 on which a coil 5 is wound; and an oil passage extending in a direction of a rotation axis of the rotor in an inside of the stator core (i.e., in yoke portions 21), wherein the oil passage (through holes) 211-216 (c.7:39-41) is inclined at a predetermined angle with respect to the rotation axis (c.9:24-31; Figs.11A-12).
PNG
media_image1.png
550
593
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima (JP 2009-240113) in view of Sugimoto.
Fukushima teaches a motor 1 comprising: a rotor 4; a stator core 3 on which a coil is wound; and an oil passage 10C extending in a direction of a rotation axis of the rotor in an inside of the stator core (Fig.1).
PNG
media_image2.png
495
451
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fukushima does not teach the oil passage 10C is “inclined at a predetermined angle with respect to the rotation axis.”
But, Sugimoto teaches a motor 1 comprising: a rotor 7; a stator core 4 on which a coil 5 is wound; and an oil passage extending in a direction of a rotation axis of the rotor in an inside of the stator core (i.e., in yoke portions 21), wherein the oil passage (through holes) 211-216 (c.7:39-41) is inclined at a predetermined angle with respect to the rotation axis (Figs.11A-12). Sugimoto teaches since the passages 211-216 are inclined (i.e., formed with a slope relative to the central axis of the stator core 4) the cooling medium can flow more smoothly, since for flowing the cooling medium flow the difference in the potential energy level is exploited, resulting in an effective removal of heat generated as electrical power is supplied to the stator winding (c.9:24-31).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to incline the oil passage of Fukushima at a predetermined angle with respect to the rotation axis since Sugimoto teaches this would have enabled the cooling medium to flow more smoothly and resulted in an effective removal of heat.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 107508415) in view of Hautz et al. (US 9,300,189).
Li teaches a motor comprising: a rotor 30; a stator core 20 on which a coil is wound (not shown); and a passage (first cooling channel) 21 extending in a direction of a rotation axis of the rotor in an inside of the stator core, wherein the passage is inclined at a predetermined angle with respect to the rotation axis (Fig.1).
PNG
media_image3.png
407
518
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Li teaches the passage 21 used for cooling is an air passage (abstract; English translation pp.4-5, claim 1), not an oil passage.
But, Hautz teaches a fluid-cooled electric machine, in particular that “[v]arious mediums can be used for cooling electric machines. If air is used, the electric machine can be cooled by means of an external ventilator or an integrated ventilator. Electric machines can also be cooled by means of a liquid. Examples of liquids include water or an oil” (c.1:20-25).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to configure Li’s passage as an oil passage instead of an air passage since Hautz teaches that in the field of fluid-cooled electric machines air and oil are equivalent cooling mediums.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over any of Sugimoto, Fukushima & Sugimoto or Li & Hautz as applied to claim 1, further in view of Ward et al. (US 4,947,065).
None of the references, alone or in combination, teach the stator is a powder magnetic core.
But, Ward teaches a stator core for an AC generator comprising a powder magnetic core that is a one-piece molded part formed from iron particles bound together by a thermoplastic (abstract). Ward teaches such a molded powder stator core has an output as high as the output of a stator core formed of a stack of steel laminations (c.1:33-39) but eliminates dies and die maintenance required for blanking laminations, extra machinery operations and the need for fastening a stack of laminations together, among other benefits (c.3:43-c.4:6).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to configure the stator core of Sugimoto, Fukushima & Sugimoto or Li & Hautz as a powder magnetic core since Ward teaches powder magnetic cores were known to provide an output as high as the output of a stator core formed of a stack of steel laminations while eliminating dies and die maintenance, extra machinery operations and the need for fastening a stack of laminations together.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farnia (US 7,487,443) in view of Dlala et al. (US 11,462,957).
Farnia teaches a motor comprising: a rotor 24; a stator core (tooth) 16 on which a coil 54 is wound (c.3:66-c.4:27; Figs.1-2).
Farnia does not teach “an oil passage extending in a direction of a rotation axis of the rotor in an inside of the stator core, wherein the oil passage is inclined at a predetermined angle with respect to the rotation axis.”
PNG
media_image4.png
362
510
media_image4.png
Greyscale
But, Dlala teaches a motor comprising a stator 101 with teeth 105 and oil passages (axial coolant channels) 103 located within stator teeth 105 extending in a direction of a rotation axis of the rotor in an inside of the stator core, to remove heat and lower motor temperatures within the stator, especially from the winding, the main source of heat (c.4:6-7; c.6:8-18; Figs.1-2).
PNG
media_image5.png
332
266
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
395
455
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Farnia’s stator core with an oil passage extending in a direction of a rotation axis of the rotor in an inside of the stator core, since Dlala teaches this would have lowered motor temperatures within the stator and efficiently removed heat from the motor. Further, Farnia’s stator 10 is conical shaped (c.3:66), i.e., the stator’s face 18, including windings 54, are tilted at an axial angle with respect to the rotation axis 14 to define a conical shaped interior surface 20 (c.4:3-5; Fig.5). Thus, in the combination, the oil passage 103 of Dlala would be inclined at a predetermined angle with respect to the rotation axis, to thereby efficiently remove heat from the main source, the windings.
Regarding claim 2, Farnia’s stator core is a powder magnetic core (c.1:25-35; c.4:21-27).
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
Prosecution Insights