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 . Claims 1-12 are pending.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: Cooling Jacket for an Electric Motor.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fakes et al. (WO 2023111188 A1) in view of Yamanaka, K. (CN 110620470 A).
PNG
media_image1.png
425
577
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
431
611
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
484
691
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
461
676
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
474
667
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
495
656
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Fakes discloses a cooling structure (fig. 2) for a motor extending in an axial direction (fig. 1), the cooling structure comprising:
a coolant flow path (path between inlet and outlet, 34.1 and 34.2 in figs. 2, 4a, 4b and 5; see also abstract: “a first cooling zone (34.1) and a second cooling zone (34.2)”) configured to allow coolant to flow in a circumferential direction of the motor (“a first cooling zone extending along a first circumferential portion of the cooling chamber between the cooling liquid inlet and the cooling liquid outlet, a second cooling zone extending along a second circumferential portion of the cooling chamber between the coolant inlet and the coolant outlet”); and
a supply port (supply port, annotated fig. 5) through which the coolant is supplied to the coolant flow path, wherein the coolant flow path comprises:
an expansion portion (expansion portion, annotated fig. 5) extending from the supply port in the circumferential direction,
a branch portion (branch portion, annotated fig. 5) extending from the expansion portion in the circumferential direction and branching into a plurality of branch flow paths (see fig. 5), wherein
the expansion portion comprises a first projection (first projection, annotated fig. 5) extending in the axial direction and narrowing a width of the coolant flow path in a radial direction of the motor (implied).
Fakes does not disclose: wherein a width of the expansion portion in the axial direction increases along the circumferential direction.
PNG
media_image7.png
643
499
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Yamanaka discloses a similar cooling structure wherein a width of the expansion portion in the axial direction increases along the circumferential direction. Yamanaka states: “Therefore, it is possible to make the cooling fluid flow without stagnation so that the cooling fluid flow rate of each cooling channel uniformly, it can make the heat distribution of the whole circumference of the motor is equalized.”
To equalize the heat distribution of the whole circumference of the motor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the expansion portion in such a way that the width of the expansion portion in the axial direction increases along the circumferential direction.
Regarding claim 2, Fakes as modified by Yamanaka in claim 1 discloses the cooling structure according to claim 1, Fakes further discloses: wherein the expansion portion further comprises a second projection (second projection, annotated fig. 5) extending in the axial direction and narrowing the width of the coolant flow path in the radial direction of the motor (implied), and the second projection is located between the supply port and the first projection in the circumferential direction (see annotated fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Fakes discloses the cooling structure according to claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose: wherein a projection height of the first projection in the radial direction is different from a projection height of the second projection in the radial direction.
However, Fakes states the geometry of the projections can be modified to adjust the hydraulic resistance (“A hydraulic resistance corresponds to the pressure drop undergone by the coolant inside a cooling zone. As emerges from the various embodiments indicated below, the hydraulic resistance can be modified in particular by adapting a geometry of the cooling zones, in particular a coolant passage section, and/or a number and a geometry of fins cooling, and/or a number and a geometry of low walls arranged inside a cooling zone. The greater the number of fins and/or low walls (of the same dimensions) inside a cooling zone, the greater the pressure drop and therefore the hydraulic resistance.”). Accordingly, varying the heights of the projections is an obvious change in geometry with a predictable outcome.
To obtain a desired hydraulic resistance, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the expansion portion in such a way that a projection height of the first projection in the radial direction is different from a projection height of the second projection in the radial direction.
Regarding claim 4, Fakes as modified by Yamanaka in claim 1 discloses the cooling structure according to claim 1, but does not disclose: wherein the first projection is bent at one or more positions along the axial direction.
Fakes states: “Of course, the number and the configuration of the low walls 40 could be adapted according to the desired hydraulic resistance to obtain the above relations defining the flow rates Q1 and Q2.”
Yamanaka discloses: “the guide recesses 31A to peripheral shape of 31F in this embodiment form a long round long on the predetermined flow direction of the cooling fluid, but may for example also as banana (fruit) is formed is combined with multiple circular arc parts and the longer in the flowing direction of said predetermined non-circular.”
Based on Yamanaka’s teaching, having a projection bent at one or more positions along the axial direction is an obvious option with predictable outcome.
To obtain the desired hydraulic resistance, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the expansion portion in such a way that the first projection is bent at one or more positions along the axial direction.
Regarding claim 5, Fakes as modified by Yamanaka in claim 1 discloses the cooling structure according to claim 1, wherein the first projection comprises a first section and a second section along the axial direction, and a projection height of the first section of the first projection in the radial direction is different from a projection height of the second section of the first projection in the radial direction (implied; Fakes in fig. 5 shows the width of the first projection is reduced in the axial direction.)
Regarding claim 6, Fakes as modified by Yamanaka in claim 1 discloses the cooling structure according to claim 1, Fakes further discloses wherein the first projection is formed continuously from one axial end of the expansion portion to other axial end thereof (see first projection in annotated fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, Fakes as modified by Yamanaka in claim 1 discloses the cooling structure according to claim 1, wherein the motor comprises a cylindrical member (housing 11, fig. 2) within which the coolant flow path is defined, and the cylindrical member comprises: an inner wall (29, fig. 3) defining an inner circumferential surface of the coolant flow path; an outer wall (30, fig. 3) defining an outer circumferential surface of the coolant flow path; and a plurality of columns (38, figs. 4a and 4b) located in the branch portion and each extending between the inner wall and the outer wall (they create coolant flow channels, see figs. 4a and 4b).
Regarding claim 10, Fakes as modified by Yamanaka in claim 1 discloses the cooling structure according to claim 1, Fakes further discloses wherein the motor comprises a cylindrical member (housing 11, fig. 2) within which the coolant flow path is defined (see fig. 2), and the cylindrical member comprises: an inner wall (29, fig. 3) defining an inner circumferential surface of the coolant flow path; an outer wall (30, fig. 3) defining an outer circumferential surface of the coolant flow path; and a plurality of intermediate walls (38, figs. 4a, 4b) located in the branch portion and each connecting the inner wall to the outer wall and extending in the circumferential direction, wherein the intermediate walls are spaced apart from each other in the axial direction (see fig. 4b).
Regarding claim 11, Fakes discloses the cooling structure according to claim 8, wherein the cylindrical member (11, fig. 2) is a motor casing that supports a stator core of the motor from radially outside (“the housing 11 define a cooling chamber 18 extending circumferentially around the stator body 14.”).
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fakes et al. (WO 2023111188 A1) in view of Yamanaka, K. (CN 110620470 A) and further in view of Correia, C. (US 20230402898 A1).
PNG
media_image8.png
517
474
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Fakes as modified by Yamanaka in claim 1 discloses the cooling structure according to claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of columns has an elliptical cross section perpendicular to the radial direction.
Correia discloses a cooling structure similar to that of Yamanaka wherein the projections and the columns have elliptical cross-sections. Hence, having columns with elliptical cross-sections is an obvious option with a predictable outcome.
For creating the circumferential channels of the cooling structure, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling structure in such a way that at least one of the plurality of columns has an elliptical cross section perpendicular to the radial direction.
Regarding claim 12, Fakes as modified by Yamanaka in claim 1 discloses the cooling structure according to claim 1, Yamanaka further discloses wherein the expansion portion comprises a gradual portion in a portion thereof in the circumferential direction, and an increase rate of the width of the expansion portion in the axial direction is smaller in the gradual portion than in other portions of the expansion portion at different positions along the circumferential direction (see fig. 2 in Yamanaka, it has two regions with two different slopes, the second slope is more negative than the first one).
Correia discloses a cooling structure similar to that of Yamanaka wherein the expansion portion comprises a gradual portion in a portion thereof in the circumferential direction, and an increase rate of the width of the expansion portion in the axial direction is smaller in the gradual portion than in other portions of the expansion portion at different positions along the circumferential direction (see the change in the slope of the upper boundary of the expansion portion.)
To obtain the desired hydraulic resistance, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the expansion portion in such a way that the expansion portion comprises a gradual portion in a portion thereof in the circumferential direction, and an increase rate of the width of the expansion portion in the axial direction is smaller in the gradual portion than in other portions of the expansion portion at different positions along the circumferential direction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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.
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).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MASOUD VAZIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-2340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm EST..
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, the examiner’s supervisor, SEYE IWARERE can be reached on (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 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.
/MASOUD VAZIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights