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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species of 7 and claims 1,4-9,12-15 in the reply filed on 12/04/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 2-3,10,11 are is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species of Figure 7, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/04/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/05/2024 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).
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: “ANTI-ELECTROLYTIC CORROSION CONDUCTIVE RING WITH BACKPLATE AVING METALLIC YARN FABRIC MEMBER FOR CURRENT CONDUCTION”
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 1,6,9,14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoerr (US PG Pub 20230208257A1 hereinafter “Hoerr”) in view of Ono (US Patent 4997293A hereinafter “Ono”).
Re-claim 1, Hoerr discloses 1. An conductive ring (10) comprising: a backplate (13) located between a rotary shaft (14) and a motor housing (12,23) and fixed to the motor housing (23); and a metallic yarn fabric member (15,P[0015, Conductor 15 can be fabric of conductor strip) mounted to the backplate (13) and made of metallic yarns (conductor strip fabric) electrically connecting the motor housing (23) to the rotary shaft (14,Ground contact can be connecting casing lid, 23 and shaft,14, providing current path, from 11 to 12, from 14 to 13, see P[0032]) ,wherein a current induced (P[current from rotating part shaft, flows to casing lid 23, 12, see p[0032]) in the rotary shaft (14) flows to the motor housing (12,23) through the metallic yarn fabric member (15).
Hoerr fails to explicitly teach or state the conductive ring is An anti-electrolytic corrosion conductive ring.
However, Ono teaches the conductive ring is an anti-electrolytic corrosion conductive ring (outer surface ring of bearing, Col.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to explicitly recite the conductive ring of Hoerr wherein the conductive ring is an anti-electrolytic corrosion conductive ring as suggested by Ono to provide anti-electrolytic metal layer with coating and provide higher accuracy and prevent corrosion at connection (Ono, Col.2, L.3-7).
Re-claim 6, Hoerr as modified disclosed the anti-electrolytic corrosion conductive ring according to claim 1, wherein the metallic yarn fabric member is coated with a protective film made of a conductive coating material (P[0017], conductor 15 is coated).
Re-claim 9, Hoerr discloses a conductive ring (10) comprising: a backplate (13) located between a rotary shaft (14) and a motor housing (12,23) and fixed to the rotary shaft (14); and a metallic yarn fabric member (15,P[0015, Conductor 15 can be fabric of conductor strip) mounted to the backplate (13) and made of metallic yarns (conductor strip fabric) electrically connecting the motor housing (23) to the rotary shaft (14,Ground contact can be connecting casing lid, 23 and shaft,14, providing current path, from 11 to 12, from 14 to 13, see P[0032]) ,wherein a current induced (P[current from rotating part shaft, flows to casing lid 23, 12, see p[0032]) in the rotary shaft (14) flows to the motor housing (12,23) through the metallic yarn fabric member (15).
Hoerr fails to explicitly teach or state the conductive ring is An anti-electrolytic corrosion conductive ring.
However, Ono teaches the conductive ring is an anti-electrolytic corrosion conductive ring (outer surface ring of bearing, Col.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to explicitly recite the conductive ring of Hoerr wherein the conductive ring is an anti-electrolytic corrosion conductive ring as suggested by Ono to provide anti-electrolytic metal layer with coating and provide higher accuracy and prevent corrosion at connection (Ono, Col.2, L.3-7).
Re-claim 14, Hoerr as modified disclosed the anti-electrolytic corrosion conductive ring according to claim 9, wherein the metallic yarn fabric member is coated with a protective film made of a conductive coating material (P[0017], conductor 15 is coated).
Claim 7,15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoerr in view of xxx and in further view of Holzmueller (US PG Pub 20140042835 hereinafter “Holzmueller”).
Re-claim 7, Hoerr as modified discloses the
anti-electrolytic corrosion conductive ring according to claim 6.
Hoerr fails to explicitly teach wherein the protective film is made of polyimide or silicone.
However, Holzmueller teaches wherein a protective film is made of polyimide or silicone (P[0120] conductor coated with Polyimide).
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 Hoerr wherein wherein the protective film is made of polyimide or silicone as suggested by Hozmueller to provide temperature tolerance for harsh environments improving reliability of the device (Holzmueller, P[0022]).
Re-claim 15, Hoerr as modified discloses the
anti-electrolytic corrosion conductive ring according to claim 14.
Hoerr fails to explicitly teach wherein the protective film is made of polyimide or silicone.
However, Holzmueller teaches wherein a protective film is made of polyimide or silicone (P[0120] conductor coated with Polyimide).
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 Hoerr wherein the protective film is made of polyimide or silicone as suggested by Hozmueller to provide temperature tolerance for harsh environments improving reliability of the device (P[0022]).
Claim 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoerr in view of xxx and in further view of Orlowski et al. (US PG Pub 20110193446 hereinafter “Orlowski”).
Re-claim 8, Hoerr as modified discloses the anti-electrolytic corrosion conductive ring according to claim 1.
Hoerr as modified fails to explicitly teach wherein the motor housing and the rotary haft are connected to each other via a bearing interposed therebetween, the bearing comprising bearing balls, and wherein the metallic yarn fabric member is disposed adjacent to the bearing, whereby a current induced in the rotary shaft is applied to the metallic yarn fabric member without being applied to the bearing balls.
Orlowski teaches wherein the motor housing (annotated fig.1) and the rotary shaft (14) are connected to each other via a bearing (12) interposed therebetween, the bearing (14) comprising bearing balls (annotated fig.2, fig.2 balls), and wherein the metallic yarn fabric member (46) is disposed adjacent to the bearing (12), whereby a current induced (P[0019], prevent electrical charge) in the rotary shaft (14) is applied to the metallic yarn fabric member (46,40) without being applied to the bearing balls (inside 12,P[0019-0022]).
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 Hoerr wherein the motor housing and the rotary haft are connected to each other via a bearing interposed therebetween, the bearing comprising bearing balls, and wherein the metallic yarn fabric member is disposed adjacent to the bearing, whereby a current induced in the rotary shaft is applied to the metallic yarn fabric member without being applied to the bearing balls as suggested by Orloweski provide effective apparatus preventing electrical current to pass through bearing preventing damage and improve bearing life (Orlowski, P[0019]).
PNG
media_image1.png
468
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
612
388
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 12 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”: 1. An anti-electrolytic corrosion conductive ring comprising: a backplate located between a rotary shaft and a motor housing and fixed to the motor housing; and a metallic yarn fabric member mounted to the backplate and made of metallic yarns electrically connecting the motor housing to the rotary shaft, wherein a current induced in the rotary shaft flows to the motor housing through the metallic yarn fabric member. 4. The anti-electrolytic corrosion conductive ring according to claim 1, wherein the metallic yarns are unit stainless yarns, each being formed by combining a plurality of stainless yarns, and wherein the metallic yarn fabric member is a twill weave formed by weaving the unit stainless yarns in such a manner that warps and wefts cross each other.”
The prior art of record fail to teach or suggest alone or combined the combinations of claims 4 and 1. The combination is found to be unique.
PNG
media_image3.png
720
547
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent from claim 4.
Claim 12 contains subject matter same as claim 4 and will have same reasons of allwoance and is objected to as being dependent on claim 9.
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent from claim 12.
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