DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-17 of U.S. Application No. 18/536875 filed on 12/12/2023 are presented for examination.
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 submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/12/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
1 - The drawings are objected to because in fig. 1, the numeral reference “14” is duplicated, one of them should be cancelled. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
2- The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: numeral reference “50” seen in fig. 2 is not in the specifications. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 5-11, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hubert et al. (US 2021/0293279; Hereinafter, “Hubert”).
Regarding claim 1: Hubert discloses a grounding brush (10) comprising: a plurality of conductive fibers (20); and a support (annular retainer 12) inside of which the conductive fibers (20) are mounted and including a mounting portion (40) and two lateral flanks (42, 44) extending from the mounting portion (40) and axially gripping the conductive fibers (fig. 9, 10B, and para [0030]), each lateral flank (42, 44) including an internal frontal face, an external frontal face, an axial thickness delimited by the internal and external frontal faces, a bore and a connecting surface extending between the internal frontal face and the bore (annotated fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
762
1047
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5/1: Hubert discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that each lateral flank (42, 44) of the support (12) includes an oblique portion extending obliquely inwardly (fig. 10B) from the mounting portion (42).
Regarding claim 6/1: Hubert discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the lateral flanks (42, 44) of the support (12) are symmetrical with each other about a radial midplane of the support (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7/1: Hubert discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the support (12) is formed as a single piece by cutting (by cutting it as strip 60; fig. 9) and pressing (bending of the strip which involves pressing).
The Examiner notes that the limitations of “formed … by cutting and pressing” has not been given a patentable weight since it is 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 8/1: Hubert discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses a grounding brush assembly (10) comprising a grounding brush (12) according to claim 1 and a brush mounting plate (case 18) secured to the support of the brush (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9/8/1: Hubert discloses the limitations of claim 8 and further discloses the mounting plate (18) includes a main body (50) and a plurality of retaining tongues (58) for axially and radially retaining the support (20) of the brush (10) and extending from the main body (50).
Regarding claim 10/9/8/1: Hubert discloses the limitations of claim 9 and further discloses an electric motor (having housing 3; para [0021]) comprising a housing (3), a shaft (2) and at least one grounding brush assembly (10) according to claim 9, mounted radially between (fig. 6-8) the housing (3) and the shaft (2), the conductive fibers (14) of the brush (10) of the assembly being in contact with the shaft (fig. 6-8).
Regarding claim 11: Hubert discloses a grounding brush (10) comprising: an annular support (annular retainer 12) including a mounting portion (40) with opposing axial ends (40a, 40b) and two lateral flanks (42, 44) extending radially inwardly from a separate one of the two axial ends of the mounting portion (fig. 4) such that an annular channel (annular groove 13) is defined between the two lateral flanks (fig. 4), each lateral flank including an internal face, an external face, an axial thickness defined between the internal and external faces, an inner circumferential surface defining a bore and a connecting surface extending between the internal face and the inner circumferential surface (annotated fig. 4 below); and a plurality of circumferentially spaced conductive fibers (20) each having an outer radial end disposed within the annular channel (13) of the support (12) and an inner radial end contactable (20a) with a shaft (2; fig. 6-8).
PNG
media_image1.png
762
1047
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15/11: Hubert discloses the limitations of claim 11 and further discloses that each lateral flank (42, 44) of the support (12) includes an oblique portion extending obliquely inwardly (fig. 10B) from the mounting portion (42).
Regarding claim 16/11: Hubert discloses the limitations of claim 11 and further discloses that the lateral flanks (42, 44) of the support (12) are formed symmetrical about a radial midplane of the support (fig. 4).
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 2-3, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubert in view of Walter Liebald et al. (GB 2291939; Hereinafter, “Walter”).
Regarding claims 2/1, and 3/2/1: Hubert discloses the limitations of claim 1 but does not specifically disclose that the connecting surface of each lateral flank of the support is convex; the connecting surface of each lateral flank of the support has a cross sectional profile formed as a circular arc.
Walter discloses that the connecting surface of each lateral flank (the sides of clamping tube 2) of the support is convex (C, D); the connecting surface of each lateral flank of the support has a cross sectional profile formed as a circular arc (fig.1).
PNG
media_image2.png
760
375
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the support of Hubert with the connecting surface of each lateral flank of the support is convex and/or the connecting surface of each lateral flank of the support has a cross sectional profile formed as a circular arc as disclosed by Walter to result in the formation of relatively large circular rounded portions, thereby avoiding the risk of undesirable surface compression on the bristles.
Regarding claims 12/11, and 13/12/11: Hubert discloses the limitations of claim 11 but does not specifically disclose that the connecting surface of each lateral flank of the support is convex; the connecting surface of each lateral flank of the support has a cross sectional profile formed as a circular arc.
Walter discloses that the connecting surface of each lateral flank (the sides of clamping tube 2) of the support is convex (C, D); the connecting surface of each lateral flank of the support has a cross sectional profile formed as a circular arc (fig.1).
PNG
media_image2.png
760
375
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the support of Hubert with the connecting surface of each lateral flank of the support is convex and/or the connecting surface of each lateral flank of the support has a cross sectional profile formed as a circular arc as disclosed by Walter to result in the formation of relatively large circular rounded portions, thereby avoiding the risk of undesirable surface compression on the bristles.
Claims 4, 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubert in view of Binkowski (US 3757164; Hereinafter, “Binkowski”).
Regarding claims 4/1: Hubert discloses the limitations of claim 1 but does not specifically disclose that the connecting surface of each lateral flank of the support has a frustoconical chamfer.
Binkowski shows the connecting surface of each lateral flank (14; fig. 1) of the support has a frustoconical chamfer (fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the support of Hubert with the connecting surface of each lateral flank of the support has a frustoconical chamfer as disclosed by Binkowski to avoiding the risk of undesirable surface compression on the filaments.
Regarding claims 14/11: Hubert discloses the limitations of claim 11 but does not specifically disclose that the connecting surface of each lateral flank of the support has a frustoconical chamfer.
Binkowski shows the connecting surface of each lateral flank (14; fig. 1) of the support has a frustoconical chamfer (fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the support of Hubert with the connecting surface of each lateral flank of the support has a frustoconical chamfer as disclosed by Binkowski to avoiding the risk of undesirable surface compression on the filaments.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubert as evidenced by Kottapalli et al. (US 2020/0263734; Hereinafter, “Kottapalli”).
Regarding claims 17/11: Hubert discloses the limitations of claim 11 and further discloses that the support is formed as a single piece (60; fig. 9).
And however the limitation “in a stamping operation” has no patentable weight in a product claim. The Examiner introduces Kottapalli merely to expedite prosecution.
Kottapalli discloses in para [0021] that the ring 52 is made in a stamping operation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the support of Hubert with stamping operation as disclosed by Kottapalli to since stamping is known as easy, reliable and cost-effective method.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED ELNAKIB whose telephone number is (571)270-0638. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Tulsidas Patel can be reached at 571-272-2098. 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.
/AHMED ELNAKIB/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2834