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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/18/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
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.
Claims 10 and 12 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.
Re-claim 10 recites “single unitary part”. as a first recitation, it is unclear if it is previously recited limitation of claim 1.
Re-claim 12, recites “an aircraft” as a first recitation, it is unclear if it is previously recited limitation of claim 1.
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-3,7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al. (US PG Pub 20140139057 hereinafter “Ho”) in view of Schweinert (US PG Pub 20170126084 hereinafter “Schweinert”).
Re-claim 1, Ho discloses a stator element (10,12,13,14,15) of an electric machine (Title) for an aircraft, the stator element comprising: an electrical conductor (12) that is elongate and hollow (P[0018]) in order to define a flow channel (121,flow channel, P[0018]) configured to have a coolant to flow (coolant fluid, see P[0018]) from a first end to a second end (two opposite ends of each electrically conducting pipe) of the conductor (12) , the conductor (12) being designed to pass an electrical current (P[0018[, current input thru 1201, output portion 1202); and a first connection element (121,121) located at one of the first and second ends of the conductor (input and output of 12), the first connection element comprising: a first fluid connection terminal (121) designed to allow the coolant to enter the channel (inside of 12) or to exit from the channel (channels 1212,1211), and a first electrical connection terminal (1201,1202) designed to electrically connect the conductor (12) wherein the conductor (12) and the connection element (121) are formed from a single unitary part (They are same part).
Ho fails to explicitly teach electric machine for an aircraft.
However, Schweinert teaches using the electric machine for an aircraft (P[0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the use of the electric machine of Ho wherein the electric machine is for an aircraft as suggested by Schweinert to provide needed actuation in an aircraft system and electrify the aircraft (Schweinert, P[0007]).
PNG
media_image1.png
646
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
548
242
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
599
304
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
476
340
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Re-claim 2, Ho as modified discloses the stator element according to claim 1, wherein the unitary part is made by one of additive manufacturing, wire drawing, machining, and molding (product is manufactured and flexibly adjusted) Product by process, Examiner points out this limitation is considered a product-by-process limitation. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777F, 2d 659, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also MPEP 2113. In this case as mentioned in P[0021], those skilled int eh art can “flexibly adjust number of turns of pipe 12 which has the unitary part).
Re-claim 3, Ho as modified discloses the stator element according to claim 1, wherein the unitary part is made of copper, aluminum, a copper alloy, or an aluminum alloy (copper material P[0018]).
Re-claim 7, Ho as modified discloses the stator element according to claim 1, wherein the first electrical connection terminal (1201) comprises an electrical connection hole (see fig.4, it is hole).
Re-claim 8, Ho as modified discloses the stator element according to claim 1.
Ho fails to explicitly teach wherein the first electrical connection terminal comprises a threaded rod.
However, Schweinert teaches the first electrical connection terminal comprises a threaded rod (P[0020],electrical hollow conductors connect via bolts, threaded connections).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the of the electric machine of Ho wherein the first electrical connection terminal comprises a threaded rod as suggested by Schweinert to better assembly, leakproof connections and non-destructive structure (Schweinert, P[0020]).
Re-claim 9, Ho as modified discloses the stator element according to claim 1, wherein the first fluid connection terminal (121) comprises a male or female end piece (end part at 16).
Re-claim 10, Ho as modified discloses the stator element according to claim 1,further comprising a second connection element (another one of 121,121) located at another ends of the conductor (any one of 2 inputs, outputs of 12 input and output of 12), the second connection element (any of 121, 1212) comprising: a second fluid connection terminal (121, any of 121) for the coolant to enter the flow channel (inside of 12) or to exit from the flow channel (channels 1212,1211), and a second electrical connection terminal (any of 1201,1202) for electrically connecting the conductor (12) wherein the conductor (12) and the connection element (121,121) are formed from a single unitary part (They are same part).
Re-claim 11, Ho as modified discloses the electric machine comprising: a stator ,the stator (10) comprising the stator element (13,14,15,12,10) according to claim 1.
Ho fails to explicitly teach a rotor and a stator configured to drive the rotor.
However, Schweinert teaches a rotor (21) and a stator (22) configured to drive the rotor (21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the of the electric machine of Ho wherein a rotor and a stator configured to drive the rotor as suggested by Schweinert to provide a unit where conductor unit works as stator making it lightweight making it a highly efficient machine for aerospace applications for high acceleration (Schweinert, P[0051]).
Re-claim 12, Ho as modified by Schweinert teach an aircraft (see claim 1 above, as Schweinert teach an aircraft) comprising the electric machine according to claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4-6 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re-claim 4, recites “inter alia”: 4. (Currently amended) The stator element according to claim 1,wherein the flow channel (308) has an internal diameter (d) and the fluid connection element (210) has an internal diameter (D) greater than the internal diameter (d) of the flow channel, as well as a constriction (310) between the diameter (D) of the connection element and the diameter (d) of the flow channel (308).”
The prior art of record, ip.com search , AI Sim search and other prior art references including Ho and other references fail to teach the combined limitations of claim 4 with claim 1. They prior art teach general structure of flow channel and fluid connection element with diameter, but fail to teach the diameters and the constriction between diameters as indicated in claim 4.
Claims 5-6 are rejected based on dependency from claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in PTO892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAGED M ALMAWRI whose telephone number is (313)446-6565. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher M. Koehler can be reached on 5712723560. 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.
/MAGED M ALMAWRI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights