DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 of U.S. Application 18/471743 filed on April 7, 2026 are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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
3. Applicant's arguments filed April 7, 2026 have been fully considered, however arguments regarding French Document 2,004,957 (FR ‘957) are moot as FR ‘957 is no longer used as grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzapfel (US 20190245312) in view of Madden (US 2551030) and Klein (US 20200044520).
Regarding claim 1, Holzapfel teaches (see figs. 1-3 below) a slip ring module (title, Abstract), comprising:
a plurality of electrically conductive elements (110, 120, 130) (¶ 51 to ¶ 53);
a dielectric support body (200) (¶ 51 to ¶ 54; ¶ 56; ¶ 18),
wherein the slip ring module is additively produced (product by process limitation, the manner in which the product/apparatus is produced is not given patentable weight in this product/apparatus claim, see below);
wherein each electrically conductive element (110, 120, 130) is formed as a single piece, includes a first region arranged as a slip ring (115, 125, 135), and a second region arranged as a connecting conductor (114, 124, 134) (¶ 51 to ¶ 54).
The Examiner points out the limitation of “the slip ring is additively produced” is considered as 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
368
900
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
472
484
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Holzapfel does not explicitly teach the dielectric support body includes webs between which cavities are located.
However, Madden teaches (see figs. 1 and 2 below) the support body (1, 2) includes webs (3-5) between which cavities (6-8) are located (col. 3: 7-68) in order to improve cooling and ventilation for the device, thereby improving reliability (Madden, col. 1: 53-55; col. 2: 1-20; col. 6: 15-38).
PNG
media_image3.png
742
464
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device Holzapfel and provide the dielectric support body includes webs between which cavities are located as taught by Madden in order to improve cooling and ventilation for the device, thereby improving reliability (Madden, col. 1: 53-55; col. 2: 1-20; col. 6: 15-38).
Holzapfel in view of Madden do not explicitly teach a material of the dielectric support body includes a ceramic material.
However, Klein teaches (see figs. 2 and 3 below) a material of the dielectric support body (59) includes a ceramic material (¶ 10; ¶ 30) in order to provide a material with high thermal conductivity thereby allowing efficient thermal dissipation of heat produced by the slip ring arrangement (Klein, ¶ 10; ¶ 30).
PNG
media_image4.png
738
619
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device Holzapfel in view of Madden and provide a material of the dielectric support body includes a ceramic material as taught by Klein in order to provide a material with high thermal conductivity thereby allowing efficient thermal dissipation of heat produced by the slip ring arrangement (Klein, ¶ 10; ¶ 30).
Regarding claim 2/1, Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein teaches the device of claim 1, Holzapfel further teaches (see figs. 1-3 above) the slip ring (115, 125, 135) includes an outer circumferential shell surface (figs 1 and 3; ¶ 51 to ¶ 54).
Regarding claim 4/1, Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein teaches the device of claim 1, Holzapfel further teaches (see figs. 1-3 above) the connecting conductor (114, 124, 134) is enclosed by webs (see annotated fig. 1 above) of the dielectric support body (200) (¶ 51 to ¶ 54).
Regarding claim 5/1, Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein teaches the device of claim 1, Holzapfel further teaches (see figs. 1-3 above) the webs (see annotated fig. 1 above) of the dielectric support body (200) have a circumferential shape in a cross-section of the slip ring module (¶ 51 to ¶ 54).
Holzapfel does not explicitly teach the webs delimit inner cavities.
However, Madden further teaches (see figs. 1 and 2 above) the webs (3-5) delimit inner cavities (6-8) (col. 3: 7-68) in order to improve cooling and ventilation for the device, thereby improving reliability (Madden, col. 1: 53-55; col. 2: 1-20; col. 6: 15-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein and provide the webs delimit inner cavities as further taught by Madden in order to improve cooling and ventilation for the device, thereby improving reliability (Madden, col. 1: 53-55; col. 2: 1-20; col. 6: 15-38).
Regarding claim 8/1, Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein teaches the device of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach in a cross-section of the slip ring module, at least one of the cavities is arranged between two connecting conductors.
However, Madden further teaches (see figs. 1 and 2 above) in a cross-section of the slip ring module, at least one of the cavities (6-8) is arranged between two connecting conductors (21-23) (col. 3: 7-68) in order to improve cooling and ventilation for the device, thereby improving reliability (Madden, col. 1: 53-55; col. 2: 1-20; col. 6: 15-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein and provide in a cross-section of the slip ring module, at least one of the cavities is arranged between two connecting conductors as further taught by Madden in order to improve cooling and ventilation for the device, thereby improving reliability (Madden, col. 1: 53-55; col. 2: 1-20; col. 6: 15-38).
Regarding claim 9/1, Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein teaches the device of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach at least one of the cavities is arranged between two first regions.
However, Madden further teaches (see figs. 1 and 2 above) at least one of the cavities (30, 31) is arranged between two first regions (col. 3: 70-75; col. 4: 1-13) in order to improve cooling and ventilation for the device, thereby improving reliability (Madden, col. 1: 53-55; col. 2: 1-20; col. 6: 15-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein and provide at least one of the cavities is arranged between two first regions as further taught by Madden in order to improve cooling and ventilation for the device, thereby improving reliability (Madden, col. 1: 53-55; col. 2: 1-20; col. 6: 15-38).
Regarding claim 11/1, Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein teaches the device of claim 1, Holzapfel further teaches (see figs. 1-3 above) at least one of the electrically conductive elements (110, 120, 130) and the dielectric support body (200) are arranged within one and the same cross-section (fig. 1; ¶ 51 to ¶ 54).
Regarding claim 12/1, Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein teaches the device of claim 1, Holzapfel further teaches (see figs. 1-3 above) the electrically conductive elements (110, 120, 130) and the dielectric support body (200) are simultaneously sintered together (product by process limitation, the manner in which the product/apparatus is produced is not given patentable weight in this product/apparatus claim, see below).
The Examiner points out the limitation of “the electrically conductive elements and the dielectric support body are simultaneously sintered together” is considered as 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.
Regarding claim 15/1, Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein teaches the device of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach the material of the dielectric support body includes at least 80% of the ceramic material by mass.
However, Klein further teaches (see figs. 2 and 3 above) the material of the dielectric support body (59) includes at least 80% of the ceramic material by mass (¶ 10; ¶ 30) in order to provide a material with high thermal conductivity thereby allowing efficient thermal dissipation of heat produced by the slip ring arrangement (Klein, ¶ 10; ¶ 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein and provide the material of the dielectric support body includes at least 80% of the ceramic material by mass as further taught by Klein in order to provide a material with high thermal conductivity thereby allowing efficient thermal dissipation of heat produced by the slip ring arrangement (Klein, ¶ 10; ¶ 30).
Regarding claim 17/1, Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein teaches the device of claim 1, Holzapfel further teaches (see figs. 1-3 above) the slip ring module is 3D printed (product by process limitation, the manner in which the product/apparatus is produced is not given patentable weight in this product/apparatus claim, see below) (Abstract).
The Examiner points out the limitation of “the slip ring module is 3D printed” is considered as 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.
Regarding claim 18/17/1, Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein teaches the device of claim 17, Holzapfel further teaches (see figs. 1-3 above) the slip ring module is sintered (product by process limitation, the manner in which the product/apparatus is produced is not given patentable weight in this product/apparatus claim, see below) (Abstract).
The Examiner points out the limitation of “the slip ring module is 3D printed” is considered as 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.
6. Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Shinder-Lerner (US 20140120742).
Regarding claim 3/1, Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein teaches the device of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach a material of the electrically conductive elements includes copper or silver.
However, Shinder-Lerner teaches (see fig. 4A below) a material of the electrically conductive elements (31) includes copper (¶ 44) in order to provide improved simplicity, reliability and ease of manufacturing (Shinder-Lerner, ¶ 78).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein and provide a material of the electrically conductive elements includes copper as taught by Shinder-Lerner in order to provide improved simplicity, reliability and ease of manufacturing (Shinder-Lerner, ¶ 78).
PNG
media_image5.png
359
354
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16/3/1, Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein Shinder-Lerner teaches the device of claim 3 but does not explicitly teach the material of the electrically conductive elements includes at least 80% copper or silver by mass.
However, Shinder-Lerner further teaches (see fig. 4A above) the material of the electrically conductive elements (31) includes at least 80% copper by mass (¶ 44) in order to provide improved simplicity, reliability and ease of manufacturing (Shinder-Lerner, ¶ 78).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein and provide the material of the electrically conductive elements includes at least 80% copper by mass as further taught by Shinder-Lerner in order to provide improved simplicity, reliability and ease of manufacturing (Shinder-Lerner, ¶ 78).
7. Claims 6, 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Schilling (WO 2012136646, see English Machine Translation previously attached).
Regarding claim 6/5/1, Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein teaches the device of claim 5 but does not explicitly teach the webs are shaped as polygons.
However, Schilling teaches (see fig. 2 below) the webs (see annotated fig. 2 below) are shaped as polygons (fig. 2; page 4) in order to provide a reduction in weight and material savings (Schilling, pages 2-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein and provide the webs are shaped as polygons as taught by Schilling in order to provide a reduction in weight and material savings (Schilling, pages 2-3).
PNG
media_image6.png
248
556
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7/5/1, Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein teaches the device of claim 5 but does not explicitly teach the webs are shaped as regular polygons.
However, Schilling teaches (see fig. 2 above) the webs (see annotated fig. 2 below) are shaped as regular polygons (fig. 2; page 4) in order to provide a reduction in weight and material savings (Schilling, pages 2-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein and provide the webs are shaped as regular polygons as taught by Schilling in order to provide a reduction in weight and material savings (Schilling, pages 2-3).
Regarding claim 19/1, Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein teaches the device of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach the webs delimit axially extending hexagonal channels of the dielectric support body.
However, Madden further teaches (see figs. 1 and 2 above) the webs (3-5) delimit axially extending channels (6-8) of the dielectric support body (1, 2) (col. 3: 7-68) in order to improve cooling and ventilation for the device, thereby improving reliability (Madden, col. 1: 53-55; col. 2: 1-20; col. 6: 15-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein and provide the webs delimit axially extending channels of the dielectric support body as further taught by Madden in order to improve cooling and ventilation for the device, thereby improving reliability (Madden, col. 1: 53-55; col. 2: 1-20; col. 6: 15-38).
Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein do not explicitly teach the channels are hexagonal.
However, Schilling teaches (see fig. 2 above) the channels (4) are hexagonal (fig. 2; page 4) in order to provide a reduction in weight and material savings (Schilling, pages 2-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein and provide the channels are hexagonal as taught by Schilling in order to provide a reduction in weight and material savings (Schilling, pages 2-3).
8. Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Ketner (US 20120126661).
Regarding claim 10/1, Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein teaches the device of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach the material of the dielectric support body includes a glass-ceramic material.
However, Ketner teaches the material of the dielectric support body includes a glass-ceramic material (¶ 22) in order to provide low costs (Ketner, ¶ 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein and provide the material of the dielectric support body includes a glass-ceramic material as taught by Ketner in order to provide low costs (Ketner, ¶ 3).
Regarding claim 20/1, Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein teaches the device of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach the ceramic material includes a glass-ceramic material.
However, Ketner teaches the ceramic material includes a glass-ceramic material (¶ 22) in order to provide low costs (Ketner, ¶ 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein and provide the ceramic material includes a glass-ceramic material as taught by Ketner in order to provide low costs (Ketner, ¶ 3).
9. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Angerpointner (EP 1482604, see English Machine Translation previously attached).
Regarding claim 13/1, Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein teaches the device of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach a bearing seat.
However, Angerpointner teaches (see fig. 4 below) a bearing seat (2.1, 4.1) (pages 3 and 4) in order to provide proper alignment and ease of manufacturing and assembly (Angerpointner, pages 2 and 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein and provide a bearing seat as taught by Angerpointner in order to provide proper alignment and ease of manufacturing and assembly (Angerpointner, pages 2 and 3).
PNG
media_image7.png
336
596
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14/13/1, Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein and Angerpointner teaches the device of claim 13 but does not explicitly teach the bearing seat is additively-produced with the electrically conductive elements.
However, Angerpointner further teaches (see fig. 4 above) the bearing seat (2.1, 4.1) is additively-produced with the electrically conductive elements (1) (product by process limitation, the manner in which the product/apparatus is produced is not given patentable weight in this product/apparatus claim, see below) (pages 3 and 4) in order to provide proper alignment and ease of manufacturing and assembly (Angerpointner, pages 2 and 3).
The Examiner points out the limitation of “the bearing seat is additively-produced” is considered as 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.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device Holzapfel in view of Madden and Klein and Angerpointner and provide the bearing seat is additively-produced with the electrically conductive elements as further taught by Angerpointner in order to provide proper alignment and ease of manufacturing and assembly (Angerpointner, pages 2 and 3).
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER A SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-0243. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm.
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, Seye Iwarere can be reached at 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.
/ALEXANDER A SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights