DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Applicant filing on 12.8.25. Claims 1-10,12-16 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments and Amendments
The Applicant has made amendments to the independent claim 1 and its dependents 4, 8, 10, 14, canceled claim 11 (combined with claim 1) which will be examined below.
Claim objections related to claims 4,10-11, 14 are withdrawn in light of amendments made which are in line with Examiner suggestions from previous Office action.
Claim 8 rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(b) is withdrawn in light of amendment to claim 8.
With respect to 35 U.S.C 102 and 103 rejections, the Applicant provides arguments to which the
Examiner will respond accordingly:
Applicant Argument 1: However, at least the grounding element/support body on the one hand, and the clamping and guiding ring on the other hand, of claim 1, as amended herein, must be different components. This is because the clamping and guiding ring presses the grounding element onto the support body, which is functionally impossible if the grounding element/support body and the clamping and guiding ring are one and the same element. Therefore, the shaft earthing ring 4 of the Teller et al. reference may comprise a grounding element and a support body according to claim 1, but the Teller etal. reference does not disclose, or suggest, a clamping and guiding ring pressing the grounding element onto the support body.
Examiner Response 1: Applicant has added new limitations into claim 1 which will be prosecuted in below sections.
Claim Objections
Claims below are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. Claim 12 recites The potential equalization arrangement according to claim 11 wherein claim 11 is to be corrected to claim 1 as claim 11 is now cancelled.
b. Claims 5 and 6 recite “ a cylindrical counter face”. Claims 5 and 6 depend finally on claim 1 which recites “a conductive counter face” which is not clear if they are the same. To advance prosecution, Examiner will interpret them to be same.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
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.
Claim 1-11,13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teller in view of Teller.
Regarding Claim 1, Teller discloses (Figs 21-23)[Para 0125] a potential equalisation arrangement (4 is a earthing element) for an electric motor [0052], having a rotating shaft and a grounding device (6) for reducing electrical potential differences between the shaft and a housing [0139 discloses “The induced voltages, currents and charges are conducted from the shaft via the contact sections 36 and the holder 26 into a grounded housing (not shown)”.] , wherein the grounding device has a shaft grounding ring (Fig 23,6), which has a support body (26) and an electrically conductive grounding element (4,36 is a grounding element) connected thereto, having a flexible grounding lip (36) for contacting a conductive counter face [Para 0133 discloses “They each have a concavely curved contact part 37, which lies flat against the circumference of the shaft”);
wherein the shaft grounding ring (6) has a guiding and clamping ring (27) for the discharge of electrical charge and/or for fastening (27 is for retaining) of the grounding element (4) on the support body (26); and
wherein the clamping and guiding ring (27) presses (Fig 22) the grounding element (4) onto the support body (26) . Teller does not explicitly disclose hollow shaft in this embodiment (Figs 21-23).
Teller further discloses hollow shaft (Embodiment of 5 in Figs 15-16 or 12 in Figs 5-6, Para 0081 discloses 12 housing can rotate and 12 is hollow in Fig 5 and grounding ring of Figs 21-23 can either go on shaft or housing Para 0125).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed potential equalisation arrangement of Teller with rotating housing which then becomes hollow shaft and as further taught by Teller in order to work with design choice of shaft and housing configuration.
PNG
media_image1.png
544
794
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
562
670
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
304
628
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
396
720
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Teller in view of Teller discloses the potential equalisation arrangement according to claim 1. Teller in view of Teller further discloses wherein the grounding element (4) is arranged in the interior (Figs 16,21-23) of the hollow shaft (5).
Regarding Claim 3, Teller in view of Teller discloses the potential equalisation arrangement according to claim 1. Teller in view of Teller further discloses wherein the potential equalisation arrangement has a discharge component [Combination with rotating housing embodiment which is hollow shaft and shaft inside becomes stationary housing and Para 0139 discloses “The induced voltages, currents and charges are conducted from the shaft via the contact sections 36 and the holder 26 into a grounded housing (not shown)”and wherein the grounding element (4) encloses (See underlined) at least one part of the discharge component (Stationary shaft inside 26 which is discharge grounded housing).
Regarding Claim 4, Teller in view of Teller discloses the potential equalisation arrangement according to claim 3. Teller in view of Teller further discloses wherein the support body (26) is arranged on an outside of the discharge component (Combination with rotating housing embodiment which is hollow shaft and shaft inside becomes stationary housing and 36 is discharging on the inside) and is connected (36) to the discharge component [Para 0139].
Regarding Claim 5, Teller in view of Teller discloses the potential equalisation arrangement according to claim 3. Teller in view of Teller further discloses wherein an inner wall (Figs 15,16, 20) of the hollow shaft (5) forms a cylindrical counter face (Fig 16) for the grounding lip (17).
Regarding Claim 6, Teller in view of Teller discloses the potential equalisation arrangement according to claim 3. Teller in view of Teller further discloses wherein the support body (26) is connected with the inner diameter of the hollow shaft (5)(combination with rotating housing which then becomes shaft), and the discharge component [Para 0139] forms a cylindrical (30 is cylindrical into which stationary shaft goes Para 0127) counter face for the rotating grounding lip [Para 0125 discloses “In principle, the shaft earthing element can also be connected to the shaft (not shown)” which then discloses “rotating grounding lip”].
Regarding Claim 7, Teller in view of Teller discloses the potential equalisation arrangement according to claim 3. Teller in view of Teller further discloses wherein the discharge component (component Para 0113 or Para 0139 “grounded housing”) consists of an electrically conductive material or has an electrically conductive insert.
Regarding Claim 8, Teller in view of Teller discloses the potential equalisation arrangement according to claim 3. Teller in view of Teller further discloses wherein the discharge component (component Para 0113) is a connecting part that comprises the support body (component Para 0113) and an electrically conductive insert (component Para 0113)(Combination of embodiment in Figs 21-23 with embodiment in Figs 15-16 where shaft has grounding ring and is stationary).
Regarding Claim 9, Teller in view of Teller discloses the potential equalisation arrangement according to claim 1. Teller in view of Teller further discloses wherein the grounding lip (Fig 23, 36) has slot-shaped interruptions on its free periphery (Para 0141 discloses “The sections 37 of the contact sections 36 that are in contact with the shaft can be provided with an embossing or the like as a surface texture on their contact side”. Further Fig 10 also shows channels 16).
PNG
media_image5.png
216
268
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, Teller in view of Teller discloses the potential equalisation arrangement according to claim 1. Teller in view of Teller further discloses wherein the grounding element (4)is an annular disc (Figs 21-23) in an unassembled state.
Regarding Claim 13, Teller in view of Teller discloses the potential equalisation arrangement according to claim 1. Teller in view of Teller further discloses wherein a base material of the grounding element (4) consists of a fluoropolymer, an elastomer, or fluorinated thermoplastic [Para 0008 discloses PTFE, conductive elastomer].
Regarding Claim 14, Teller in view of Teller discloses the potential equalisation arrangement according to claim 1. Teller in view of Teller further discloses wherein the grounding element conductive fillers are introduced into the grounding element [Para 0059 discloses “ the strand has a conductive sheath in the form of a fabric, fibers, particles, compounds, and the like, which surrounds an elastic core, which can consist, for example, of rubber, a metallic spring, a liquid, a gel, and the like” which is similar to Para0017 of instant specification. Further Para 0008 discloses “conductive PTFE” which inherently implies the use of conductive fillers].
Regarding Claim 15, Teller in view of Teller discloses the potential equalisation arrangement according to claim 1. Teller in view of Teller further discloses wherein the grounding element has an electrically conductive surface coating [Para 0065 discloses “In this case, the shaft earthing ring can be made entirely of an electrically conductive material, but can also be made of an electrically non-conductive material provided with an electrically conductive coating”].
Regarding Claim 16, Teller in view of Teller discloses the potential equalisation arrangement according to claim 14. Teller in view of Teller further discloses wherein the grounding element conductive fillers are metallic, metallised or metal-coated particulates, fibres and/or hollow spheres, conductive soot, nano tubes or conductive fibres [Para 0059 discloses “ the strand has a conductive sheath in the form of a fabric, fibers, particles, compounds, and the like, which surrounds an elastic core, which can consist, for example, of rubber, a metallic spring, a liquid, a gel, and the like” which is similar to Para0017 of instant specification. Further Para 0008 discloses “conductive PTFE” which inherently implies the use of conductive fillers].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teller in view of Teller and Schamin (US20230015934A1 PCT Filing date 11.26.20).
Regarding Claim 12, Teller in view of Teller discloses the potential equalisation arrangement according to claim 11. Teller in view of Teller further discloses (Figs 21-23) the guiding and/or clamping ring (27) but does not explicitly disclose the guiding and/or clamping ring has at least one electrically conductive penetrating element, which penetrates the grounding element in the assembled state.
Schamin discloses (Fig 4C) the guiding and/or clamping ring (300,310) has at least one electrically conductive [Para 0023 discloses “the contacting device and/or the supporting body device can be made of an electrically conductive metal or a metal alloy, e.g., steel, copper or aluminum”) penetrating element (360), which penetrates the grounding element (220c) in the assembled state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed potential equalisation arrangement of Teller in view of Teller with conductive penetration by guiding/clamping ring of grounding element as taught by Schamin in order to have a well supported, durable and quickly discharging grounding device.
PNG
media_image6.png
578
502
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at 5712723560. 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.
/VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834