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
Claims 3 and 11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on January 22, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1 in the reply filed on January 22, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Office’s conclusion fails to meet the required burden of proof because all pending claims contain features that would not require a separate field of search. Applicant argues the Office must explain the reasons with evidence for insisting upon a species election. This is not found persuasive because the Election/Restriction requirement set forth specific details to the differentiating features in Species a-f and provided a specific rationale as to why the there is a search burden. For instance, elected Species 1 is drawn to a contact section having a cone shape and the side surface having a truncated wall. Page 4, lines 3-9, set forth Figures 1 and 2 are drawn to a first embodiment. The details of Figures 1 and 2 to the contact portion having a cone shape are further set forth on Pages 10-Pg. 16, lines 1-13). Species 2 is drawn to Figures 1 and 3 which is drawn to a conically wound helical spring and a constant inner sleeve diameter. Page 4, lines 9-10 set forth that Figure 3 is a second embodiment and details as to how the structures of Figures 3 are mutually exclusive from Species 1 are disclosed on Page 16, lines 18-23. Species 1 and Species 2 would therefore require divergent searches. A contact section having a sleeve having a cone shape requires a different text search than a sleeve with a constant inner diameter. The sleeves would not be used in combination with one another and are therefore mutually exclusive. Species 3, Figures 1 and 4 is drawn to a contact section with a spherical section, a first contact surface with a convex section, and a clearance void; Species 5, to Figures 1 and 5, drawn to a side surface having a convex curved surface, a second contact having a trumpet shape, and a clearance is a cylindrical section of a receiving channel; Species 6, to Figures 1 and 6 is drawn to a first component arranged on the drive shaft and a second component fixed to the connection assembly; and Species 7, to Figure 7 is drawn to the first component having a truncated cone and the tip of the cone being flattened with represents a clearance or void. Page 4, lines 11-18 discloses that each of Figures 3, 4, 5, and 6 are different embodiments. The disclosure provides details to each embodiment and the differentiating structures. As set forth above, each embodiment has different structures, are mutually exclusive, and require a different text search.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 11,940,095 to Gass in view of US Patent No. 4,468,069 to Meal et al.
In re claim 1, Gass teaches a sawing apparatus, comprising:
a drive shaft (242) that is rotatable about a central axis for rotationally driving a saw blade (40), a base part (262) on which the drive shaft is rotatably mounted, and an electrical rotary feedthrough (140) for the electrically conductive connection of the drive shaft to a connection assembly (282,272) that is fastened to the base part,
wherein the electrical rotary feedthrough (140) comprises a first component (see Annotated Figure 1, below), which is arranged coaxially in relation to the central axis, and a second component (152) that is arranged coaxially in relation to the central axis, wherein the first component comprises a contact section that tapers (as shown in at least Figure 9) in the direction of the second component and along the central axis and a shell surface (the surface of the first component is a ”shell” surface) of the contact section forms a first contact surface (as shown in at least Figure 30), wherein the second component comprises a receiving channel (as shown in at least Figure 30) that extends along the central axis and a side surface (the side surface is the taper of 152) of the receiving channel forms a second contact surface, wherein the first contact surface lies against the second contact surface at least in sections (Col. 13, lines 23-30).
PNG
media_image1.png
233
395
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 2, wherein the side surface (the side surface is the taper of 152) comprises a surface section in the shape of a truncated cone shell (as shown in at least Figure 30), and the surface section in the shape of a truncated cone shell forms the second contact surface (as shown in at least Figure 30).
In re claim 4, wherein the tapering contact section is rotationally symmetrical at least in sections in relation to the central axis (as shown in at least Figure 30).
In re claim 5, wherein the first component (140) and the second component (152) are spring-loaded against one another by means of a spring element (146).
In re claim 12, wherein the second component (152) is (capable of being) formed by means of an end section of the drive shaft (242) and the receiving channel is arranged in the drive shaft (as shown in at least Figure 30).
In re claim 13, wherein the second component (152) comprises an insert (Col. 13, lines 23-25, the second component is an insert) and the receiving channel (as shown in at least Figure 30) is arranged in the insert.
In re claim 14, wherein the insert (the second component is an insert) is connected to the end section of the drive shaft (242).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Gass teaches an electrical rotary feedthrough (140) having a first contact surface in contact with the second contact surface, but does not teach wherein the receiving channel comprises a clearance for ruling out a purely axial abutment of the first component against the second component.
Meal teaches an electrical rotary feedthrough (51) having a first contact surface in contact with the second contact surface (as shown in at least Figure 4), wherein the receiving channel comprises a clearance (as shown in Figure 4) for ruling out a purely axial abutment of the first component against the second component.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for receiving channel (which receives the electrical rotary feedthrough) to having a channel comprising a clearance to permit a minimal amount frictional contact with the shaft (Col. 1, lines 55-67, Col. 2, lines 1-5).
In re claim 9, modified Meal teaches wherein the clearance (as shown in Figure 4) is formed by means of a free space for the contactless reception of an end section of the first component that faces the second component.
In re claim 10, modified Meal teaches wherein the free space is (capable of being) formed by means of a cylindrical section (as shown in Figures 27 and 30, 152 has a cylindrical section) of the receiving channel, which lies on a side of the second contact surface that faces away from the first component (as shown in Figure 30).
Examiner’s note, a side of the second contact surface faces toward the first component and another side faces away from the first component.
In re claim 15, Gass teaches an electrical rotary feedthrough for a sawing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the electrical rotary feedthrough (140) can rotate about a central axis (Col. 10, lines 62-67), to a connection assembly that is fixed relative to the drive shaft (242) and comprises a first component (140) and a second component (150) that are arranged coaxially in relation to a central axis, wherein the first component comprises a contact section that tapers (as shown in at least Figures 9 and 30) in the direction of the second component and along the central axis and the shell surface (the surface of the first component is a shell) of said contact section forms a first contact surface,
wherein the second component (152) comprises a receiving channel (as shown in at least Figure 30) that extends along the central axis and the side surface (the side surface is the taper of 152) of the receiving channel forms a second contact surface, wherein the first contact surface lies against the second contact surface at least in sections (Col. 13, lines 23-30).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gass in view of Meal et al., as applied to the above claims, and in further view of DE102011079463 to Niedemeier et al.
In re claims 6-8, Gass teaches wherein a spring element and a sleeve (as shown in at least Figure 26 and in Annotated Figure 3, below) arrangement with a cable (274 attachment) , but does not teach the spring element comprises a cylindrical or conically wound helical spring (Claim 6), wherein the spring element is guided in a sleeve (Claim 7), and wherein the sleeve comprises a first section having a first inner diameter and a second section having a second inner diameter, wherein the second inner diameter is larger than the first inner diameter and the second section faces the first component or the second component to be acted upon (Claim 8).
PNG
media_image2.png
502
501
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Niedemeier teaches a spring element (226) comprises a cylindrical wound helical spring (Pg. 5, lines 38-41), wherein the spring element is guided in a sleeve (220,228), and wherein the sleeve comprises a first section (228) having a first inner diameter and a second section (see Annotated Figure 2, below) having a second inner diameter, wherein the second inner diameter is larger than the first inner diameter and the second section faces the first component to be acted upon (as shown in at least Figure 2, Pg. 8, below).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Gass with a cylindrical wound helical spring and sleeve arrangement having a first and second inner diameter as taught by Niedemeier to aid in supporting the spring and ease of replacement of the electrical rotary feedthrough (Pg. 5, lines 38-41).
One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the spring arrangement of Gass is sleeved, but there are no details to the internal arrangement of the sleeve. Gass teaches a sleeve comprising a spring in which a cable is connected to the sleeve, and similarly, Neidemeier teaches a sleeve having an inner and outer diameter comprising a spring in which a cable is attached to the sleeve. Modifying Gass with a sleeve arrangement having an inner and outer diameter as taught by Niedeimeier would not have altered the function of the device of Gass, but provided a way to easily access replacement of the electrical rotary feedthrough.
PNG
media_image3.png
676
668
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER S MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-4pm.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724