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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/07/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 20,21,24,27,28,35,38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Bossaller et al. (US 2010/0001602).
Regarding claim 20, Bossaller et al. teach:
An arrangement for grounding a shaft of an electric machine (abstract), the arrangement comprising:
a housing (16, Fig 2);
a grounding hub (12) for electrically conductively connecting a shaft (paras 12 -17) to be grounded to the housing (16), the housing acting as a ground; and
a guide element (36, paras 15) mounted on the grounding hub (12),
the guide element (36) at least one of rotationally fixing the grounding hub (12) in a direction of rotation (para 16) or limiting displacement of the grounding hub (12) in at least one axial direction (para 16, Fig 2).
Regarding claim 21/20, Bossaller et al teach wherein one of the housing (16) or the guide element defines at least one rib (Fig 2 element 16 by numeral 18 at top of figure) projecting radially and extending in a circumferential direction over a subsection thereof, the grounding hub (12) being secured against rotation relative to the housing by each of the at least one rib projecting into a respective recess defined in another of the housing or the guide element (36).
Regarding claim 24/20, Bossaller et al. teach further comprising an intermediate conductor element (44, Fig 2), the grounding hub (12) being electrically conductively connected to the housing (16) via the intermediate conductor element (para 16).
Regarding claim 27/24, Bossaller et al. teach wherein the intermediate conductor element (44) is placed axially between the housing (16) and an end face of the grounding hub (by numerals 12 and 36) facing away from a shaft (14) to be grounded.
Regarding claim 28/24, Bossaller et al. teach wherein the intermediate conductor element (44) is axially between the housing (16) and the guide element (36).
Regarding claim 35/20, Bossaller et al. teach wherein the grounding hub (12) consists of aluminum (para 17).
Regarding claim 38/20, Bossaller et al. teach an electric machine (abstract), comprising: a stator (not shown, but implicit per para 13 speaking of a motor 18), the stator being rotationally fixed (implicit in order for the motor to function as disclosed); a rotor rotatable relative to the stator (not shown, but implicit per para 13 speaking of a motor 18); and a rotor shaft (14, paras 14,16-19) coupled to the rotor, the rotor shaft being grounded by the arrangement of claim 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 23, 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bossaller et al. (US 2010/0001602).
Regarding claim 23/20, Bossaller et al. teach the invention as discussed above, except for press fitting the guide element onto the grounding hub.
In regards to claim 23, the method of making limitations are not germane to the patentability of the apparatus and have not been given patentable weight. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product by process claim is the same 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, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966(Fed. Cir. 1985). In this instance the case it is obvious to press the guide element onto the grounding hub, as Bossaller et al. shows it assembled / pressed on. The motivation to do so would depend on cost (para 5 of Bossaller et al. talks about retrofitting which would allow cost savings compared to replacing the entire unit.).
Regarding claims 36/20 and 37/20, Bossaller et al. discloses the claimed invention except for mentioning that the components can also be used in a motor vehicle transmission or an electric drive axle unit for a motor vehicle comprising a shaft (14, Fig 2) by the arrangement of claim 20. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to use Bossaller et al.’s device in either a motor vehicle transmission or an electric drive axle unit for a motor vehicle.
The motivation to do so would he based on cost since Bossaler et al. teaches to retroactively installing a grounding ring about a motor shaft (para 5)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22,25,26,29-34 are 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: In claim 22/20 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein the guide element is ring-shaped, an inner diameter of the guide element being mounted on an outer diameter of the grounding hub or an outer diameter of the guide element being mounted on an inner diameter of the grounding hub.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
In claim 25/24 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein the intermediate conductor element is a spring element, the grounding hub being axially preloaded towards a shaft to be grounded via the spring element.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
Claim 26/25 is also allowable for depending on claim 25.
In claim 29/20 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein the grounding hub is floatingly mounted on the housing.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
In claim 30/29 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein the grounding hub defines a guide section, the guide section of the grounding hub being axially displaceably guided on a guide bore defined in the housing.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
Claim 31/30 is also allowable for depending on claim 30.
In claim 32/20 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein the guide element interacts with an axial stop to limit displacement of the grounding hub in the at least one axial direction with respect to the housing.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record
Claim 33/32 is also allowable for depending on claim 32.
In claim 34/20 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein at least part of the grounding hub is tubular, the part of the grounding hub that is tubular connecting to a supply connection on the housing for supplying at least one of lubricant or coolant to a shaft to be grounded.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO-892 for details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAISHADH N DESAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3038. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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 571-272-3560. 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.
NAISHADH N. DESAI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2834
/NAISHADH N DESAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834