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 .
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 and 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, which is connected via a screw to a contact plate (158), but does not teach wherein
wherein the electrical rotary feedthrough comprises a sleeve having a first section with a first inner diameter and a second section with a second inner diameter larger than the first inner diameter, wherein the second section faces the first component, wherein the first component comprises a rotationally symmetrical body portion and an enlarged contact portion arranged at an end of the rotationally symmetrical body portion facing the second component, wherein the enlarged contact portion comprises the contact section, and wherein a maximum outer diameter of the enlarged contact portion is greater than an outer diameter of the rotationally symmetrical body portion and smaller than the second inner diameter of the sleeve.
Meal teaches an electrical rotary feedthrough (Fig. 4) comprises a sleeve (41) having a first section (see Annotated Figure 1) with a first inner diameter (see Annotated Figure 1) and a second section (see Annotated Figure 1) with a second inner diameter (see Annotated Figure 1) larger than the first inner diameter, wherein the second section faces the first component (49), wherein the first component comprises a rotationally symmetrical body portion and an enlarged contact portion (51) arranged at an end of the rotationally symmetrical body portion facing the second component, wherein the enlarged contact portion comprises the contact section, and wherein a maximum outer diameter of the enlarged contact portion (51, as shown in at least Figure 4) is greater than an outer diameter of the rotationally symmetrical body portion (49) and smaller than the second inner diameter of the sleeve (see Annotated Figure 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
415
915
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the screw and contact plate of Gass with an electrical rotary feedthrough arrangement having a sleeve and spring as taught by Meal which is advantageous in reducing downtime for replacing the component of the rotary feedthrough (Col. 1, lines 48-52). One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the advantages of the arrangement of Gass in view of Meal. The modification would not alter the purpose of the device, which is to provide an electrical connection between two components.
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 7, modified Gass teaches wherein the spring element is guided in the sleeve (41, Meal).
In re claim 8, modified Gass teaches wherein the second section of the sleeve provides greater radial free play for the spring element than the first second of the sleeve (as shown in at least Figure 4, Meal).
Examiner’s note, the second section of the sleeve has to be capable of providing greater radial free play, in which it is.
Regarding claim 6, Gass teaches wherein a spring element and a sleeve arrangement, but does not teach the spring element comprises a cylindrical or conically wound helical spring.
PNG
media_image3.png
502
501
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Niedemeier teaches a spring element (226) comprises a cylindrical wound helical spring (Pg. 5, lines 38-41).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide modified Gass with a cylindrical wound helical spring as taught by Niedemeier to aid in supporting the spring and ease of replacement of the electrical rotary feedthrough (Pg. 5, lines 38-41).
Claims 9, 10, and 16 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 US Patent No. 4,746,410 to Domoto et al.
In re claim 9, modified Gass 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 Gass 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 16, modified Gass teaches a receiving channel, but does not explicitly teach the receiving channel comprises a clearance for ruling out a purely axial abutment of the first component against the second component.
Domoto teaches a first component having a taper which is received in a receiving channel comprising a clearance (Fig. 2) for ruling out axial abutment of the first component against the second component (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the first component and receiving channel to have an arrangement providing the receiving channel with a taper as taught by Domoto to have shape to permit a and the receiving channel which to reduce the surface area in contact with the channel which reduces wear.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights