DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Application No. 18939408 filed on 11/06/2024 are presented for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/06/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-4,6,8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jan Nagelkramer et al. (DE 102021126535; Hereinafter, “Jan”) in view of Goto et al. (US 2011/0215660; Hereinafter, “Goto”).
Regarding claim 1: Jan discloses a liquid-cooled stator (14) comprising: a housing (30); a stator core (20) positioned within the housing (30), the stator core (20) including a plurality of teeth and a back (annotated fig. 2 below), the plurality of teeth defining an inner diameter (ID) of the stator core, and the back defining an outer diameter (OD) of the stator core; a winding arrangement (made of conductors 12) positioned on the stator core (20), the winding arrangement including a first plurality of end turns (22) extending from a first axial end of the stator core and a second plurality of end turns (22) extending from a second axial end of the stator core (annotated fig. 1 below); a shroud (24) positioned on the first axial end (fig. 1) of the stator core (20) and covering the first plurality of end turns (22); and an inner sleeve (can 28) connected to the ID of the stator core (fig. 2), the inner sleeve (28) extending in an axial direction beyond a first axial end of the stator core.
PNG
media_image1.png
481
1099
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jan does not specifically disclose the core back is made of iron.
Goto discloses a stator core made of steel sheets (para [0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the back of core of Jan’s stator from iron as taught by Goto since it is the common practice of the art and iron is known for its excellent relative permeability, and low cost.
Regarding claim 2/1: Jan, in view of Goto discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Jan further discloses that the shroud (24) is connected to the inner sleeve (28) in proximity of the first axial end of the stator core (annotated fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 3/2/1: Jan, in view of Goto discloses the limitations of claim 2, and Goto further discloses that the shroud (211 which is part of the shroud 170) is welded to the inner sleeve (176) in proximity of the first axial end of the stator core (fig. 11-13, and para [0134]).
Regarding claim 4/2/1: Jan, in view of Goto discloses the limitations of claim , and Jan further discloses that an adhesive is used to connect the shroud (24) to the inner sleeve (28) in proximity of the first axial end of the stator core.
PNG
media_image2.png
145
870
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6/2/1: Jan, in view of Goto discloses the limitations of claim 2, and Jan further discloses that the shroud is a first shroud (24), the stator further comprising a second shroud (26) positioned on the second axial end of the stator core (fig. 1) and covering the second plurality of end turns (22), the second shroud connected to the inner sleeve (28) in proximity of the second axial end of the stator core (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8/1, and 9/8: Jan, in view of Goto discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Jan further discloses that the inner sleeve (28) includes an outer annular surface (radially outer annular surface) that is coated with an adhesive (glue as discussed above), wherein the outer annular surface of the inner sleeve (28) is connected to the ID of the stator core (20) with the adhesive as discussed above in claim 4); the inner sleeve (28) is formed from a fluid-impervious sheet (“fluid tight manner”) that is rolled into a cylindrical shape (fig. 2) and adhered to the ID of the stator core (fig. 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5/4/2/1, 7/6/2/1, 10/1 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 11-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 11: the limitations of claim 11, “…the shroud including a corrugated radial wall defining an axially-outward face” in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated, nor obvious over the prior arts in record. Claims 12-16 are allowable for depending on claim 11.
Regarding claim 17: the limitations of claim 11, “…the shroud including an undercut along an outer wall of the shroud in proximity of the stator core such that a radial distance from the inner cylindrical space to the outer wall of the shroud is less at the undercut than at positions axially-outward from the undercut” in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated, nor obvious over the prior arts in record. Claims 18-20 are allowable for depending on claim 17.
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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED ELNAKIB whose telephone number is (571)270-0638. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Tulsidas 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.
/AHMED ELNAKIB/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2834
