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 13 December 2024 & 13 March 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-16 were canceled in the preliminary amendment filed 13 December 2024. Claims 17-36 are pending.
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 22 & 27 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 22, recitation “…optionally, wherein the fluid source is a coolant source” is vague and indefinite.
In claim 27, it is unclear how “optionally, wherein the barrier component locates in an interference fit with said adjacent pair of teeth via the planar engagement region” distinguishes from “wherein the barrier component comprises a planar engagement region, wherein the planar engagement region is arranged in abutment with said adjacent pair of teeth”.
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.
Claims 17-18, 26, 29-30 & 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nashiki (US Pat.Pub.2009/0134734).
Regarding claim 17, Nashiki teaches a stator assembly for an electric machine having a rotational axis, the stator assembly comprising: a stator core, comprising:
a back iron (part of stator cores); and a plurality of teeth (not numbered) extending radially from the back iron and configured to receive stator windings D36-D38 (Fig.25); wherein the back iron comprises a gap so as to separate the stator assembly into a first stator module and a second stator module (i.e., multiple stator cores; Fig.25);
wherein the stator assembly further comprises a barrier component D3C located in the gap and extending radially therefrom with respect to the rotational axis, such that at least part of the barrier component is received circumferentially between an adjacent pair of teeth of the plurality of teeth (Fig.25);
wherein the barrier component D3C is configured to subtend an angle with respect to the rotational axis; and
wherein the angle subtended by the barrier component is less than ⅙ of a circle and/or wherein the angle subtended by the barrier component is less than an angle subtended by three adjacent teeth of the plurality of teeth with respect to the rotational axis wherein each of the first stator module and
the second stator module comprises: an integrally formed structure including a plurality of teeth; and a plurality of stator windings D36-D38 (¶[0161]-¶[0162]; Fig.25).
PNG
media_image1.png
398
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, the barrier D3C component defines a radial extent with respect to the rotational axis and a circumferential extent with respect to the rotational axis, wherein the radial extent is greater than the circumferential extent (Fig.25).
Regarding claim 26, the gap is positioned between an adjacent pair of teeth about which no windings are wound, such that the barrier component D3C extends radially therebetween (Fig.25).
Regarding claim 29, the back iron comprises a plurality of gaps so as to separate the stator assembly into at least three stator modules (Fig.25).
Regarding claim 30, the barrier component D3C defines a substantially rectangular cross-section (Fig.25).
Regarding claim 34, the back iron comprises a plurality of gaps so as to separate the stator assembly into at least four stator modules (Fig.25).
Claims 17-20, 25 & 29-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Osama (US Pat.Pub.2022/0069641).1
Regarding claim 17, Osama teaches a stator assembly 214 for an electric machine 200 having a rotational axis, the stator assembly comprising: a stator core 214, comprising:
a back iron 226; and a plurality of teeth 228 extending radially from the back iron and configured to receive stator windings 222; wherein the back iron comprises a gap (for intermodular separator) so as to separate the stator assembly into a first stator module 240A and a second stator module 240B (Fig.6);
wherein the stator assembly further comprises a barrier component (intermodular separators) 250A-B located in the gap and extending radially therefrom with respect to the rotational axis, such that at least part of the barrier component 250A-B is received circumferentially between an adjacent pair of teeth of the plurality of teeth (Fig.6);
wherein the barrier component 250A-B is configured to subtend an angle with respect to the rotational axis (Fig.6); and
wherein the angle subtended by the barrier component is less than ⅙ of a circle and/or wherein the angle subtended by the barrier component is less than an angle subtended by three adjacent teeth of the plurality of teeth with respect to the rotational axis wherein each of the first stator module (Fig.6) and
the second stator module 240B comprises: an integrally formed structure including a plurality of teeth 228; and a plurality of stator windings (¶[0045]; Fig.6).
PNG
media_image2.png
675
611
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, the barrier component 250A-B defines a radial extent with respect to the rotational axis and a circumferential extent with respect to the rotational axis, wherein the radial extent is greater than the circumferential extent (Fig.6).
Regarding claim 19, the barrier component 250A-B comprises a planar engagement region, wherein the planar engagement region is arranged in abutment with the back iron 226 (Fig.6).
Regarding claim 20, the gap and the barrier component 250A-B are configured such that the barrier component locates in an interference fit with the back iron 226 via the planar engagement region (i.e., barrier component contacts respective sides of back irons 226; Fig.6).
Regarding claim 25, a plurality of stator windings are wound around at least a portion of the plurality of teeth, and the gap is positioned between an adjacent pair of teeth about which a plurality of windings are wound, such that the barrier component extends radially between adjacent stator windings (e.g., intermodular separator 250A-B isolates adjacent stator modules 222A & 222B and adjacent respective stator windings 222A-C & 222B-C, which are wound only within their associated module; abstract; ¶[0061]-¶[0064]; Fig.7).
Regarding claim 29, the back iron 226 comprises a plurality of gaps so as to separate the stator assembly into at least three stator modules 240A-240C (Fig.6).
Regarding claim 30, the barrier component 250A-B defines a substantially rectangular cross-section (i.e., radial portions; Fig.6).
Regarding claim 31, the barrier component 250A-B defines a substantially T-shaped cross-section (i.e., radial and circumferential portions; Fig.6).
Regarding claim 32, Osama teaches use of the electric machine 200 in an aircraft 10, the electric machine comprising: the stator assembly 214 according to claim 17; and a rotor 212, configured to rotate with respect to the stator assembly about the rotational axis (¶[0008]; Figs.1&5).
Regarding claim 33, Osama teaches an aircraft 10 comprising the electric machine according to claim 32.
Regarding claim 34, the back iron 226 comprises a plurality of gaps so as to separate the stator assembly into at least four stator modules 240A-240D (Fig.6).
Regarding claim 35, the back iron 226 comprises a plurality of gaps so as to separate the stator assembly into at least six stator modules 240A-240F (Fig.6).
Regarding claim 36, the number of stator modules can have more than six modules (¶[0049]) and thus encompasses the claimed eight stator modules.
Claims 17-20, 26-27 & 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US Pat.Pub.2022/0069641).
Regarding claim 17, Liu teaches a stator assembly 2 for an electric machine having a rotational axis, the stator assembly comprising: a stator core 1-1, comprising:
a back iron (not numbered); and a plurality of teeth (not numbered) extending radially from the back iron and configured to receive stator windings 3; wherein the back iron comprises a gap (for nonmagnetic conductor) so as to separate the stator assembly into a first stator module I and a second stator module II (Fig.1);
wherein the stator assembly further comprises a barrier component (nonmagnetic conductor) 4 located in the gap and extending radially therefrom with respect to the rotational axis, such that at least part of the barrier component is received circumferentially between an adjacent pair of teeth of the plurality of teeth (Figs.1-2);
wherein the barrier component 4 is configured to subtend an angle with respect to the rotational axis (Figs.1-2); and
wherein the angle subtended by the barrier component is less than ⅙ of a circle and/or wherein the angle subtended by the barrier component is less than an angle subtended by three adjacent teeth of the plurality of teeth with respect to the rotational axis wherein each of the first stator module (Figs.1-2) and
the second stator module II comprises: an integrally formed structure including a plurality of teeth; and a plurality of stator windings 3 (Figs.1&4).
PNG
media_image3.png
413
481
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, the barrier component 4 defines a radial extent with respect to the rotational axis and a circumferential extent with respect to the rotational axis, wherein the radial extent is greater than the circumferential extent (Figs.1-2).
Regarding claim 19, the barrier component 4 comprises a planar engagement region, wherein the planar engagement region is arranged in abutment with the back iron (Figs.1-2).
Regarding claim 20, the gap and the barrier component 4 are configured such that the barrier component locates in an interference fit with the back iron via the planar engagement region (i.e., barrier component 4 contacts respective sides of stator cores 1-1; Fig.2).
Regarding claim 26, the gap is positioned between an adjacent pair of teeth about which no windings 3 are wound, such that the barrier component 4 extends radially therebetween (Fig.4).
Regarding claim 27, the barrier component 4 comprises a planar engagement region, wherein the planar engagement region is arranged in abutment with said adjacent pair of teeth; “optionally, wherein the barrier component locates in an interference fit with said adjacent pair of teeth via the planar engagement region” [sic] (i.e., barrier component 4 contacts respective sides of back stator cores 1-1; Fig.2).
Regarding claim 29, the back iron comprises a plurality of gaps so as to separate the stator assembly into at least three stator modules I-III (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 30, the barrier component 4 defines a substantially rectangular cross-section (Fig.2).
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 21-22 & 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over any of Nashiki, Osama or Liu as applied to claim 17, further in view of Mueller (DE 10 2022 109799).2
The respective barrier components of Nashiki, Osama and Liu are not “at least partially hollow so as to define an internal chamber therein” (claim 21) and do not comprise “a coated metal, a polyimide glass laminate, a fibrous laminate or combinations thereof” (claim 28).
But, Mueller teaches an electrical machine including a stator 3 comprising a plurality of teeth 9 and a barrier component (separating web) 15 provided in a gaps 10F between the teeth, wherein the barrier component 15 is at least partially hollow so as to define an internal chamber (cooling channels) 15N, 15P therein for additional cooling of the electric machine (¶[0021]; ¶[0046]; Fig.7). Further, Mueller’s barrier component comprises a solid, closed component material that produced low eddy current losses and can be machined very well and easily, e.g., an SMC (soft-magnetic composite) material (¶[0050]; ¶[0052]). SMC materials comprise “coated metals” since they are made by coating powder particles of a low-retentivity metallic material with a thin, electro-insulating glass film and compacting the coated, free-flowing powder at elevated temperature.3
PNG
media_image4.png
389
284
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to configure the respective barrier components of Nashiki, Osama or Liu to be “at least partially hollow so as to define an internal chamber therein” since Mueller teaches this would have provided additional cooling of the electric machine. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to configure the respective barrier components of Nashiki, Osama or Liu from a “coated metal” since Mueller teaches this material would have produced low eddy current losses and could have been machined very well and easily.
Regarding claim 22, Mueller’s internal chamber 15N, 15P is fluidly connected to a fluid (coolant) source, such that a fluid from said fluid source can be introduced into the internal chamber; “optionally, wherein the fluid source is a coolant source” [sic] (¶[0021]; ¶[0046]).
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nashiki & Mueller, Osama & Mueller or Liu & Mueller as applied to claim 21, further in view of Cudok et al. (DE 10 2018 222137).4
The combinations of Nashiki & Mueller, Osama & Mueller or Liu & Mueller do not further teach “at least one sensor is located in the internal chamber.”
But, Cudok teaches a stator device 10 comprising a stator cooling duct 16/18 and at least one temperature sensor designed to detect a temperature value of a cooling fluid flowing in the duct and control flow thereof (¶[0023]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide a sensor located in the internal chamber of Nashiki & Mueller, Osama & Mueller or Liu & Mueller since Cudok teaches a temperature sensor would have been desirable to detect a temperature value of the cooling fluid and control flow thereof.
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 Cited in 13 March 2025 IDS.
2 Cited in 13 March 2025 IDS.
3 See, e.g., Kloucek et al. (DE 3603061) or Nillius et al. (US 6,485,579).
4 Cited in 13 March 2025 IDS.
Prosecution Insights