DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant's communication filed 22 January 2025. In view of this communication, claims 1-20 are now pending in the application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 22 January 2025 was/were filed before mailing of the first action on the merits. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Disclosure
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a dielectric fluid, such as oil”. The phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. — Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph:
Subject to the [fifth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA )], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 14 recites a “vehicle comprising and electric rotary machine of claim 1”, but does not recite any additional limitations relating to said machine. Thus, while the claim requires that said machine be used in a vehicle, it does not further limit the subject matter of said machine in any way.
The Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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(s) 1, 4-5, 7-9, 12, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Coppola et al. (US 2022/0115922 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Coppola”.
Regarding claim 1, Coppola discloses an electric rotary machine [20] (fig. 2-6; ¶ 0030-0031) for an automotive vehicle (This statement of the intended use of the machine implies no additional structural or functional limitations.) comprising:
a rotor [60] which is non-rotatably connected to a rotor shaft [28] (fig. 3-6; ¶ 0034),
a stator [40] which surrounds the rotor [60] (fig. 3-6; ¶ 0034);
a casing [22,36] in which the rotor [60] and the stator [40] are enclosed, the rotor shaft [28] being rotatably mounted on the casing [22,36] along an X axis [29] (fig. 2-6; ¶ 0031, 0034, 0036); and
a stator sleeve [50] which is enclosed in the casing [22,36] and is radially arranged between an outer surface of the stator [40] and an inner cylindrical surface of the casing [22,36] (fig. 2-6; ¶ 0031-0032);
PNG
media_image1.png
391
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
{the electric rotary machine [20] being} wherein the stator sleeve [50] is made of an elastic material [50] and is arranged to filter vibrations which are generated by the stator [40] and result from electromagnetic forces present in the stator [40] when the electric rotary machine [20] is in operation (fig. 2-6; ¶ 0032, 0036; “polymer 50 material may be selected to minimize or mitigate certain mechanical noise or vibrations caused or contributed to by the stator 40 and/or the housing 22”) and in that the stator sleeve [50] comprises a cooling groove [96] which is intended to be connected to a coolant supply line (fig. 17-20; ¶ 0045; the coolant being “circulated” implies that both supply and discharge lines are connected to the cooling channels).
Regarding claim 4, Coppola discloses the electric rotary machine [20] according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the coolant supply line is filled with a coolant which is a dielectric fluid, such as oil (¶ 0045).
Regarding claim 5, Coppola discloses the electric rotary machine [20] according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the elastic material [50] is an elastomeric material (¶ 0032).
Regarding claim 7, Coppola discloses the electric rotary machine [20] according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the casing [22,36] includes two opposing faces which are orthogonal to the X axis [29] and are joined together by a cylindrical skirt [30] which extends around the X axis [29] (fig. 3-6; ¶ 0034).
Regarding claim 8, Coppola discloses the electric rotary machine [20] according to claim 7, as stated above, wherein the stator [40] is bolted to the one of the two opposing faces of the casing [22,36] by means of screws which extend parallel to the X axis [29] and each pass through a corresponding hole arranged in the stator [40] (fig. 1; ¶ 0027, 0033; “electric motor assembly 20 may also be … fastened to the housing … without mechanical fasteners”).
Regarding claim 9, Coppola discloses the electric rotary machine [20] according to claim 7, as stated above, wherein the stator sleeve [50] is pressed against at least one of the opposing faces of the casing [22,36] (fig. 4; ¶ 0035).
Regarding claim 12, Coppola discloses the electric rotary machine [20] according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the stator [40] comprises windings [41] and an iron core [42] which carries the windings [41] (fig. 2-6; ¶ 0031, 0034; stacks of laminations are well-known to be typically made from electrical steel).
Regarding claim 20, Coppola discloses the electric rotary machine [20] according to claim 8, as stated above, wherein the stator sleeve [50] is pressed against at least one of the opposing faces of the casing [22,36] (fig. 4; ¶ 0035).
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 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.
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(s) 2-3, 11, 15-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coppola in view of Yamada (US 2019/0305615 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Yamada”.
Regarding claim 2, Coppola discloses the electric rotary machine [20] according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the cooling groove [96] is arranged on a radially inner surface of the stator sleeve [50 and is formed between the radially inner surface of the stator sleeve [50] and the outer surface of the stator [40] (fig. 20; ¶ 0045).
Coppola does not disclose that the cooling groove [96] is helicoidal around the X axis [29] so that a flow path having a spiral shape is formed.
Yamada discloses an electric rotary machine [1] comprising a stator [20] enclosed by a casing [10] and a stator sleeve [22] having a cooling groove [23] arranged between the stator [20] and the casing [10] (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0026-0027), wherein the cooling groove [23] is helicoidal around the X axis [S] so that a flow path having a spiral shape is formed (fig. 2; ¶ 0031-0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the cooling groove of Coppola in a spiral shape with supply and discharge ports as taught by Yamada, in order to provide a larger surface area for the coolant to exchange heat with the machine thereby improving its heat dissipation properties (¶ 0042 of Yamada).
PNG
media_image2.png
447
1122
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Coppola discloses the electric rotary machine [20] according to claim 1, as stated above. Coppola does not disclose that the casing [22,36] comprises a supply port which communicates with a first end of the cooling groove [96].
Yamada discloses an electric rotary machine [1] comprising a stator [20] enclosed by a casing [10] and a stator sleeve [22] having a cooling groove [23] arranged between the stator [20] and the casing [10] (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0026-0027), wherein the cooling groove [23] is helicoidal around the X axis [S] so that a flow path having a spiral shape is formed (fig. 2; ¶ 0031-0033), wherein the casing [10] comprises a supply port [14] which communicates with a first end of the cooling groove [23] (fig. 1; ¶ 0026-0027).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the cooling groove of Coppola in a spiral shape with supply and discharge ports as taught by Yamada, in order to provide a larger surface area for the coolant to exchange heat with the machine thereby improving its heat dissipation properties (¶ 0042 of Yamada).
Regarding claim 11, Coppola, in view of Yamada, discloses the electric rotary machine [20] according to claim 2, as stated above, wherein the stator sleeve [50] includes metallic inserts [70] which are embedded in the elastic material [50] (fig. 10-12; ¶ 0039-0041).
Regarding claim 15, Coppola, in view of Yamada, discloses the electric rotary machine [20] according to claim 2, as stated above, wherein Yamada further discloses that the casing [10] comprises a supply port [14] which communicates with a first end of the cooling groove [23] (fig. 1; ¶ 0026-0027).
Regarding claim 16, Coppola, in view of Yamada, discloses the electric rotary machine [20] according to claim 2, as stated above, wherein the coolant supply line is filled with a coolant which is a dielectric fluid, such as oil (¶ 0045).
Regarding claim 17, Coppola, in view of Yamada, discloses the electric rotary machine [20] according to claim 2, as stated above, wherein the elastic material [50] is an elastomeric material ((¶ 0032).
Regarding claim 19, Coppola, in view of Yamada, discloses the electric rotary machine [20] according to claim 2, as stated above, wherein the casing [22,36] includes two opposing faces which are orthogonal to the X axis [29] and are joined together by a cylindrical skirt [30] which extends around the X axis [29] (fig. 3-6; ¶ 0034).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coppola in view of Powell et al. (US 2019/0028015 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Powell”.
Regarding claim 6, Coppola discloses the electric rotary machine [20] according to claim 1, as stated above.
Coppola does not disclose that the elastic material [50] has a young modulus which is comprised between 0.001 and 0.1 GPa.
Powell discloses an electric rotary machine comprising an elastic material [210] (fig. 2; ¶ 0077, 0081-0087), wherein the elastic material [210] has a young modulus which is comprised between 0.001 and 0.1 GPa (¶ 0092; a “typical useful Young's modulus for this application is between 1 MPa and 100 MPa”; 1 MPa equals 0.001 GPA and 100 MPa equals 0.1 GPa).
PNG
media_image3.png
216
642
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the elastic material of Coppola using a material having a Young’s modulus in the range as taught by Powell, in order to effectively dissipate vibration energy within the material (¶ 0092 of Powell).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coppola and Yamada as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Powell.
Regarding claim 18, Coppola, in view of Yamada, discloses the electric rotary machine [20] according to claim 2, as stated above.
Coppola does not disclose that the elastic material [50] has a young modulus which is comprised between 0.001 and 0.1 GPa.
Powell discloses an electric rotary machine comprising an elastic material [210] (fig. 2; ¶ 0077, 0081-0087), wherein the elastic material [210] has a young modulus which is comprised between 0.001 and 0.1 GPa (¶ 0092; a “typical useful Young's modulus for this application is between 1 MPa and 100 MPa”; 1 MPa equals 0.001 GPA and 100 MPa equals 0.1 GPa).
PNG
media_image3.png
216
642
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the elastic material of Coppola using a material having a Young’s modulus in the range as taught by Powell, in order to effectively dissipate vibration energy within the material (¶ 0092 of Powell).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coppola in view of Pierson et al. (DE 10 2022 207 108 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Pierson”.
Regarding claim 10, Coppola discloses the electric rotary machine [20] according to claim 7, as stated above, wherein the casing [22,36] includes at least two components [22,36] which each comprise a flanged end [22f,36f], the flanged ends [22f,36f] of the two components [22,36] being attached to each other (fig. 3-6; ¶ 0034).
Coppola does not disclose that the stator sleeve [50] comprises a radial flange which is axially arranged between the two flanged ends [22f,36f].
PNG
media_image4.png
412
610
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Pierson discloses an electric rotary machine [12] comprising a casing [15,50], wherein the casing [15,50] includes at least two components [15,50] which each comprise a flanged end [30,50f], the flanged ends [30,50f] of the two components [15,50] being attached to each other and wherein the stator sleeve [44] comprises a radial flange which is axially arranged between the two flanged ends [30,50f] (fig. 2; ¶ 0021-0022).
PNG
media_image5.png
540
686
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the stator sleeve of Coppola having a radial flange extending between the flanges of the housing components as taught by Pierson, in order to reliably dampen structure-borne noise to provide the required vibration damping for various applications (¶ 0003 of Pierson).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coppola in view of Haas et al. (US 2023/0253844 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Haas”.
Regarding claim 13, Coppola discloses the electric rotary machine [20] according to claim 12, as stated above. Coppola does not disclose that the iron core [42] comprises a plurality of ducts which are arranged to conduct the coolant from the cooling groove [96] to the windings [41].
Haas discloses an electric rotary machine comprising a housing [49], a stator sleeve with a cooling groove [50], and a stator [10] with windings [29] and an iron core [12,16] (fig. 1-3; ¶ 0051, 0062), wherein the iron core [12,16] comprises a plurality of ducts [34] which are arranged to conduct the coolant from the cooling groove [50] to the windings [29] (fig. 1-3; ¶ 0055-0056, 0061-0064).
PNG
media_image6.png
523
1330
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the stator of Coppola having a plurality of ducts arranged as taught by Haas, in order to provide direct contact between the coolant and the windings thereby increasing the cooling thereof and improving the performance of the electric machine (¶ 0016, 0020 of Haas).
Regarding claim 14, Coppola discloses the electric rotary machine [20] according to claim 1, as stated above. Coppola does not disclose the electric rotary machine [20] used in an automotive vehicle.
Haas discloses an electric rotary machine comprising a housing [49], a stator sleeve with a cooling groove [50], and a stator [10] with windings [29] and an iron core [12,16] (fig. 1-3; ¶ 0051, 0062), the electric rotary machine being used in an automotive vehicle [38] (fig. 6; ¶ 0064).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the electric rotary machine of Coppola in an automotive vehicle as taught by Haas, in order to minimize or mitigate mechanical noise or vibrations (¶ 0037 of Coppola) while providing increased cooling capacity and improved performance (¶ 0016, 0020 of Haas).
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Prior art:
Condamin et al. (US 2004/0124720 A1) discloses an electric machine comprising a rotor connected to a shaft, a stator surrounding the rotor, a casing enclosing the rotor and the stator, and a stator sleeve radially arranged between the casing and the stator, the stator sleeve having a cooling groove for supplying a coolant to cool the stator.
Matsuoka et al. (US 2014/0265694 A1) discloses an electric machine comprising a casing and a stator having a winding and an iron core, the stator being bolted to the axial end of its casing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Andrews whose telephone number is (571)270-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30am-3:00pm.
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, Oluseye 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael Andrews/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights