DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/568,086, filed on 7 December, 2023, were presented for examination. In the preliminary amendment also filed 7 December, 2023, claims 1-14 were canceled and new claims 15-28 were added. In the response filed 18 May, 2026, new claims 29-30 were added. Claims 15-30 are currently pending in the application.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10 February, 2026, was filed before the mailing date of this Office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The Examiner has considered the NPL citations (German Search Reports) even though they were not accompanied by an English-language translation because he was already familiar with the references discussed therein, and has determined that the references provided in the PTO Form 892 and the IDS’s are more pertinent to the claims. It is noted that the D1 reference listed in one of the German Search Reports was omitted from the IDS filed 10 February, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 May, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At the top of page 6 of the response, Applicant states that support for the new amendments can be found in at least ¶ 0007-0010, 0032, 0034-0035, and 0037 of the application. The written description of the application does not contain paragraph numbers. The Examiner set about to find as much support for the limitations in claim 15 referring to the axial offset and the offset limit, and found it in the last line of page 8 and the first two lines of page 9. This corresponds to ¶ 0035 of the Pre-Grant Publication of the application, so the Examiner believes that the paragraph numbers Applicant cites refer to that publication.
The relevant passage for establishing support for the new limitations is “In the exemplary embodiment according to FIG. 4, the guide elements EF are distributed at three positions along the circumferential surface C and between one contact element EK and the next. Due to the guide elements EF, an axial offset between the shaft grounding device E and the shaft W is limited, such that the contact elements EK are prevented from folding over during the mounting of the shaft grounding device E”.
The Examiner cannot precisely determine whether the term “axial” refers to in the axial direction along the axis or toward-and-away from the axis (in the radial direction). The paragraph mentions sliding the shaft grounding device in the axial direction onto the shaft. This would seem establish “axial” to mean that the axial offset would be an offset (movement) along the axis. However, this is not supported by the rest of the application, which discusses restricting movement in the radial direction. Further, there does not appear to be any means, in the instant application, for limiting motion/offset in the axial direction. Focusing on only words, there is a potential position to be taken that the offset limit is not supported by the application as filed to be an axial one, even though this is mentioned (once). Focusing on the application as a whole, there is another potential, and more likely position to be taken that the limitation means/requires a limit to/against radial motion/offset of the shaft away from the axis. This is not only supported by the application as filed, it seems to be the entire function of the invention.
In order to advance prosecution, instead of rejecting the limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b), the Examiner will interpret the limitation broadly, to include all motion/offset that is a) toward-and-away-from the axis and whose annular space for taking place, between the shaft and the guide elements, has an axial component/overlap, and b) in an axial direction {with the hope that if this is the case, the Applicant can eventually further amend the claim to establish the axial-direction motion/offset definitively in the claim and also explain in arguments how this is supported}.
In the second half of page 6 of the response, and continuing onto page 7, Applicant addresses all the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections in bulk and recites claim 15 as amended. Then the support citations are offered. Then ¶ 0007 (from the PG Pub) is quoted which includes “due to the guide element, precisely non-coaxial-arrangement state is limited to an extent that is safe for the contact elements”. To limit “non-coaxial-arrangement” is to limit the shaft’s offset in the radial direction, away from the axis. Thus, the arguments will be interpreted herein as referring to a radial (toward/away-from the axis) limit, and the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections (below) will also interpret the prior art and claim 15 to have the “axial offset” as meaning “away from the axis”.
The bottom of page 7 moves onto the rejections under Bezooijen and the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 under said reference. Applicant offers their own characterization of the reference and the rejection from the First Office Action, which the Examiner will not contest.
At the bottom of page 8 Applicant alleges the distinction of claim 15 over Bezooijen; specifically, that Bezooijen does not suggest that the flaps (guide element) “contacts the shaft when an axial offset between the shaft grounding device and the shaft reaches an offset limit… …to prevent the axial offset from increasing beyond the offset limit… …and one or more of the flap sections…. from being bent further…” (emphasis added by the Examiner). The follow-up to this is to characterize Bezooijen as having a joint, and then Applicant repeats the above cited limitation to reinforce that Bezooijen fails to teach, apparently, the whole clause or an unspecified portion of it. As the Examiner has shown in the rejections that Bezooijen teaches the elements listed in the clause, the Examiner has determined, without further guidance, that Applicant is placing the weight of the argument in the word “when”. The argument makes much sense if the reader believes Applicant is saying the contact is made when/after the offset limit is reached – as in, once the offset limit is reached, but not before.
The Examiner hopes he has landed on the gist of Applicant’s argument, because the clause is not dissected and contrasted with Bezooijen.
The reason this does not define over Bezooijen is because the Bezooijen’s guide element contacts the shaft when/after the axial offset reaches the offset limit. It contacts it before the axial offset has been reached as well. Bezooijen’s guide element is contacting the shaft before the axial offset limit is reached, while contact is first being initiated, and after the offset limit has been reached. The claim has not established a non-contact state that Bezooijen lacks. See the rejections below.
The bottom half of page 9, moving onto page 10, begins the discussion of Dorrestijn and the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 under said reference. Applicant lists their own characterization of Dorrestijn and of the rejection from the First Office Action. Applicant does attempt to contrast Dorrestijn directly to claim 15, alleging that the carrier sections 5 of Dorrestijn do not correspond to the claimed contact elements because they do not contact the shaft [3]. The contact with the shaft is one of the limitations added to claim 15 in the amendment.
PNG
media_image1.png
552
957
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Due to the weakening notch (labeled in the fig. 5 excerpt below), during axial offset of the shaft chronologically leading up to reaching the offset limit, the combined structure defined by 5 and 6 will pivot in the clockwise direction and element 5 will very soon contact the shaft to form a sliding contact, thus meeting that limitation of the claim.
Applicant alleges that contact elements 6 of Dorrestijn do not correspond to the claimed at least one guide element because they are coupled to the carrier sections 5… such that offset would be transmitted by the contact elements 6 to the carrier sections 5. The Examiner’s response is that this is not precluded by claim 15.
At the bottom of page 10 and continuing onto the top of claim 11, Applicant makes the same case against Dorrestijn that they made against Bezooijen, which appears to boil down to the fact that the guide element contacts the shaft when the axial offset reaches the offset limit. The Examiner will omit the long lead-up (see above) to his parallel conclusion that Dorrestijn’s guide element contacts the shaft when (after) the axial offset reaches the offset limit. It contacts it before the axial offset has been reached as well. Dorrestijn’s guide element is contacting the shaft before the axial offset limit is reached, while contact is first being initiated, and after (when) the offset limit has been reached. The claim has not established a non-contact state that Dorrestijn lacks. See the rejections below.
Page 11 of the response deals with Timm and the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 under said reference. Applicants again offer their characterization of the reference and of the Examiner’s rejection.
Applicant alleges that the cartridges 16 (guide elements) of Timm do not contact the shaft, and that only the free ends of the fibers contact the shaft. Under this logic, the instant application would suffer the same problem – that the guide elements taught in this application would never reach/touch the shaft because the contact elements are too stiff to allow it. The Examiner’s contrary opinion is that if some force, particularly while assembling the grounding device of Timm on the shaft, pushed the end of the shaft laterally, the fibers, which by being fibers, even when bunched together, will offer negligible shear resistance and the cartridges will soon collide with the shaft, restricting its axial offsetting motion. This feature, although not discussed (Applicant is directed to MPEP 2112, sub-sections I, II, and particularly III, for examples of the doctrine of inherency) in Timm explicitly, is identical to the activity that happens in the invention of the instant application. Therefore, the Examiner’s counter-argument does not need to be overstated, and will end here.
PNG
media_image2.png
472
898
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the middle of page 12 Applicant contrasts Timm to the entire clause, discussed above, that seems to hinge on the before-after state (when) of making contact with the shaft. However, in Timm’s case, the contact truly is made when/once the offset limit is reached, while having been previously not made before the offset limit was reached. See the rejections below.
The bottom of page 12 of the response moves on to dealing with Franke and the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 under said reference. Applicant again makes their own characterization of the reference and of the Examiner’s rejection. Mainly the characterization adds up to the fact that Franke’s finger shaped lamellae [12] are on the slip ring [7] and therefore, apparently, the slip ring does not prevent an axial offset between the contact element and the shaft from increasing beyond an offset limit and does not prevent the lamellae from bending. The Examiner’s counter-argument is that it does prohibit both of these things – it just prohibits them extremely and preemptively – to the point that they almost cannot happen. See the rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Lines 14-15 of claim 1 recite the limitation “being bent further”. There is no basis for the term “further”. A reader reading this limitation, looking back at the preceding claim language, would try to establish “further than what?” and could not find a reference frame. There seems to be a radial dimension established by the “offset limit” but that refers to the movement of the shaft. For examination on the merits, the Examiner will interpret this limitation as “further than it had been bent before some other condition existed”.
Claims 16-30 are rejected for depending from rejected claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 15-20 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by van Bezooijen (US 2019/0109520 A1).
With respect to claim 15, van Bezooijen teaches a shaft grounding device [shaft grounding ring (FIG. 3) including elements 2, 3, 5, 7, 14, 16, 17] (see ¶ 0042) for electrically conductively connecting a rotatable shaft [1] and a housing [11] (see ¶ 0044 which recites “the dissipation body 10… with which the induced voltages can be dissipated away from the shaft 1 to a grounded housing 11), the shaft grounding device [2/3/5/7/14/16/17] being mechanically and electrically connected to the housing (see fig. 3, ¶ 0001, 0034, and 0044), the shaft grounding device [2/3/5/7/14/16/17] comprising:
contact elements [flap sections 16, including web 22 and joint 26], each of the contact elements [16] being elastically bendable and electrically conductive (see ¶ 0049 which recites “flap sections 16, 17 in radial direction have different lengths and are contacting with elastic deformation the shaft 1… so that they can be bent elastically relative to the outer ring 14…” – also, ¶ 0051 recites “due to the elastic deformation of the flap sections 16, 17, it is achieved that they are contacting a really the shaft 1 and thus can reliably dissipate the voltages away from the shaft 1” which proves they are electrically conductive), the contact elements [16] contacting the rotatable shaft [1] to form a sliding contact (¶ 0053 recites “ensures for the period of use a constant reliable contact with the shaft 1…” – as the contact elements are immobile relative to the housing, this necessitates sliding contacting) that is electrically conductive with a circumferential surface [C] of the rotatable shaft [1] or a sleeve on the rotatable shaft [1], the contact elements [16] preloading the sliding contact (at running track 20 – see ¶ 0053 and 0055); and
PNG
media_image3.png
549
898
media_image3.png
Greyscale
at least one guide element [flaps 17 including web 27 and base 28], one or more of the at least one guide element [17] contacting the rotatable shaft [1] or the sleeve on the rotatable shaft when an axial offset between the shaft grounding device [2/3/5/7/14/16/17] and the rotatable shaft [1] reaches an offset limit (the guide elements contact the shaft all the time, both before and after the axial offset reaches an offset limit) to prevent the axial offset from increasing beyond the offset limit (the limit will exhibit itself every time the shaft experiences displacement and gets shoved back by 16 and 17) and one or more of the contact elements [16] from being bent further (at some point they will stop bending as the centering force exerted by them and the guide elements exceeds the radial displacement force acting on the shaft) as the shaft grounding device [2/3/5/7/14/16/17] is being mounted onto the rotatable shaft [1] (¶ 0025 recites “in order for the flap sections of different lengths to be reliably elastically bent in the installation position… the joint ensures that the corresponding flap sections of different lengths can be elastically deformed to the required amount…”).
{It is noted that although “being bent” is not explicitly discussed in the reference, the claim language is functional in nature, and can be interpreted such that any solid 3-dimensional item(s) interspersed between the contact elements would reduce the likelihood of the contact elements “being bent further” by increasing the sum total of all restorative centering forces on the shaft, with each extra/additional item included between the housing and shaft constraining the shaft’s ability to deviate radially from its centered position, invariably reducing the severity of a bending phenomenon in any individual contact element that is in the same sector as said item. Additionally, Applicant is directed to MPEP 2112, sub-sections I, II, and particularly III, for examples of the doctrine of inherency – although the Examiner has relied on a mechanics-based rationale to determine a common-sense conclusion that the contact elements [16] will bend less due to the existence of the guide elements [17], which is sufficient because the “bending” is claimed as functional language, and therefore passive, inherency arguments are still relevant and Applicant is again advised of the relevant section of the MPEP cited above}.
13. With respect to claim 16/15, van Bezooijen teaches the device of claim 15, and further teaches wherein the contact elements [16] are arranged in a ring shape (see new annotated fig. 1 excerpt attached below), wherein the at least one guide element [17] comprises three guide elements spaced apart (numbered by the Examiner), each of the three guide elements [17] being positioned between a respective pair of adjacent contact elements [16] of the contact elements.
PNG
media_image4.png
516
424
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 17/15, van Bezooijen teaches the device of claim 15, and further teaches wherein the contact elements [16] are arranged in a ring shape, wherein the at least one guide element [17] is ring-shaped (in the new annotated excerpt of fig. 1 attached below, the Examiner has drawn a gray ring for the contact elements 16 and another gray ring for the guide elements – they both clearly follow their respective rings in orientation and geometry and are therefore ring-shaped).
PNG
media_image5.png
504
432
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 18/15, van Bezooijen teaches the device of claim 15, and further teaches:
a holding element [inner clamping ring 3]; and
a clamping element [outer clamping ring 2] (see ¶ 0042),
wherein the contact elements [16] are held between the holding element [3] and the clamping element [2] (see new annotated excerpts of figs. 1 and 3 below, as well as ¶ 0042-0043 – it is noted that contact elements 16 are integral with ring 14 – see ¶ 0046 and 0048, the latter of which recites “ring 14 which is axially clamped across most of its radial width between the radial flanges 5, 7 of the clamping rings 2, 3…”), and
PNG
media_image6.png
522
873
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein the at least one guide element [17] is formed on or fastened to the holding element [3] or the clamping element [2] (it is also integral with ring 14 so is fastened to 2 and 3 by being clamped between them).
With respect to claim 19/18/15, van Bezooijen teaches the device of claim 18, and further teaches
wherein the holding element [2] or the clamping element [3] defines at least one recess (recess between 2 and 3, labeled by the Examiner in the new excerpt of figs. 1 and 3 below). For receiving at least one of the contact members [16] (again, contact members 16 are integral with ring 14, which is received in the recess – see ¶ 0048).
PNG
media_image7.png
518
874
media_image7.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 20/15, van Bezooijen teaches the device of claim 15, and further teaches wherein at least one of the contact elements [16] has a cross-section which increases (at the transition from base 23 to web 22 – see ¶ 0058 and the enlarged snapshot of fig. 1 attached below, wherein the Examiner has labeled the radial inward direction and the overlap) radially inwardly and overlaps one or more of the at least one guide element [17] (it is noted that the overlap will come into effect after the installation of the shaft, as shown in fig. 3), such that the at least one of the contact elements is limited from moving axially beyond the one or more of the at least one guide element [17] {the only way the contact element 16 could move axially beyond (in the axial rightward direction and/or from left to right in fig. 3 above) rightward-most side of the guide element [17] is if both were completely destroyed or removed or if the shaft were extracted and stuck in again from the other direction, which is not among the teachings of the reference}.
PNG
media_image8.png
551
442
media_image8.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 30/15, van Bezooijen teaches the device of claim 15, and further teaches wherein radially outer ends (at 10 in fig. 3) of the contact elements [16] are coupled with the at least one guide element [17] (see ¶ 0044 wherein they are clamped together between radial flanges 5 and 7).
PNG
media_image9.png
410
323
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claims 15 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dorrestijn (WO 2015/086096 A1, reference provided herein).
With respect to claim 15, Dorrestijn teaches a shaft grounding device [sealing arrangement 1] for electrically conductively connecting a rotatable shaft [rotating shaft 3] and a housing [2] (see last paragraph of page 6 – the housing is shown in in the embodiment of figs. 1-2 but not in the embodiment of figs. 3-5 – although the latter embodiment is being used herein, the housing is clearly part of it and is being interpreted as existing around the shaft grounding device as shown in figs. 1-2, even though it is not discussed in the embodiment of figs. 3-5), the shaft grounding device [1] being mechanically and electrically connected to the housing [2] (the abstract recites “a durable electrical connection between the machine parts…” it having been established in the beginning of the abstract that the first machine part is the housing 2 and the second machine part is the shaft 3), the shaft grounding device [1] comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
552
957
media_image1.png
Greyscale
contact elements [carrier sections 5], each of the contact elements [5] being elastically bendable (the bottom of page 8 recites “the contact elements 6 are pressed radially onto the surface of the shaft 3 by means of spring 11…” – see also the weakening notch in figs. 4-5) and electrically conductive (see abstract), the contact elements [5] contacting the rotatable shaft [1] to form a sliding contact (between contact element 6 and shaft 3) that is electrically conductive with a circumferential surface [C] of the rotatable shaft [3] (see abstract) or a sleeve on the rotatable shaft [3], the contact elements [5] preloading the sliding contact (between 6 and C, with or without the spring 11, due to the weakening notch); and
at least one guide element [contact element 6], one or more of the at least one guide element [6] contacting the rotatable shaft [3] or the sleeve on the rotatable shaft when an axial offset between the shaft grounding device [1] and the rotatable shaft [3] reaches an offset limit (the guide elements contact the shaft all the time, both before and after the axial offset reaches an offset limit) to prevent the axial offset from increasing beyond the offset limit (the limit will exhibit itself every time the shaft experiences displacement and gets shoved back by 6 and also seal 4 which is sprung by 10) and one or more of the contact elements [5] from being bent further (at some point they will stop bending as the centering force exerted by them and the guide elements and the seal 4 exceeds the radial displacement force acting on the shaft) as the shaft grounding device [1] is being mounted onto the rotatable shaft [3] (if the guide elements 6 were removed from the contact elements, the latter would be more prone to deformation and would bend more, since the guide elements 6 are described as consisting of graphite which is a very stiff material).
With respect to claim 21/15, Dorrestijn teaches the device of claim 15, and further teaches wherein at least one of the contact elements [5] encompasses one or more of the at least one guide element [6] (it encompasses it via receiving it in a recess, labeled by the Examiner in the annotated excerpt of fig. 4 attached below).
PNG
media_image10.png
545
301
media_image10.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 22/21/15, Dorrestijn teaches the device of claim 21, and further teaches wherein each of the at least one of the contact elements [5] defines a recess (still referring to the fig. 4 excerpt above, wherein the Examiner has labeled the recess defined by the pockets in elements 5).
Claims 15, 23, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Timm (WO 2020/194191 A1, provided herein).
With respect to claim 15, Timm teaches a shaft grounding device [10] for electrically conductively connecting a rotatable shaft (represented by “diameter d” in fig. 7 – see abstract and top half of page 9) and a housing (mentioned in the abstract, claim 1, and page 6, line 8), the shaft grounding device [10] being mechanically and electrically connected to the housing (still referring to page 6 which describes the embodiment of figs. 1-5 but whose general discussion is taken to also refer to the alternative embodiment of figs. 6-9, used herein), the shaft grounding device [10] comprising:
PNG
media_image11.png
473
892
media_image11.png
Greyscale
contact elements [fibers 18], each of the contact elements [18] being elastically bendable (all fibers are elastically bendable) and electrically conductive (see page 8, lines 6-8), the contact elements [18] contacting the rotatable shaft [d] to form a sliding contact (see last two lines of abstract) that is electrically conductive with a circumferential surface of the rotatable shaft (see col. 3, lines 30-31) or a sleeve on the rotatable shaft, the contact elements [18] preloading the sliding contact (if the elements 18 are pushed until they touch, then the preloading of the sliding contact results or else they would stop touching); and
at least one guide element [cartridge 16], one or more of the at least one guide element [16] contacting the rotatable shaft [d] or the sleeve on the rotatable shaft when an axial offset between the shaft grounding device [10] and the rotatable shaft [d] reaches an offset limit (the inner radius or inner edge of 16 – see new annotated excerpt of figs. 7-8 attached below, wherein the Examiner has labeled the offset limit) to prevent the axial offset from increasing beyond the offset limit (the inner radius or inner edge of 16) and one or more of the contact elements [18] from being bent further (than the inner radius or inner edge of 16) as the shaft grounding device [10] is mounted onto the rotatable shaft.
PNG
media_image2.png
472
898
media_image2.png
Greyscale
{It is noted that although “being bent” is not explicitly discussed in the reference, the claim language is functional in nature, and can be interpreted such that any 3-dimensional solid item(s) protruding toward the shaft, and stiffer than the fibers (which guide elements 16 must be because by being 3-dimensional in nature, they can resist compressive stress unlike a 2-dimensional fiber), would necessarily reduce the extent of bending of the contact elements by increasing the sum total of all restorative centering forces on the shaft, with each extra/additional 3-dimensional item included between the housing and shaft constraining the shaft’s ability to deviate radially from its centered position, invariably reducing the incidence of a folding phenomenon in any individual contact element. Additionally, Applicant is directed to MPEP 2112, sub-sections I, II, and particularly III, for examples of the doctrine of inherency – although the Examiner has relied on a mechanics-based rationale to determine a common-sense conclusion that the contact elements [18] are less likely to fold due to the existence of the guide elements [16], which is sufficient because the “being bent” is claimed as functional language, and therefore passive, inherency arguments are still relevant and Applicant is advised to read said section of the MPEP}.
With respect to claim 23/15, Timm teaches the device of claim 15, and further teaches wherein one guide element [16] has no contact with the circumferential surface (represented by “d” which is outer diameter of the shaft, in fig. 7) when the shaft grounding device [10] is in a mounted state on the rotatable shaft {the top of page 9 recites “the cartridges (16) and conductive fibers (18) mounted thereon are moved radially inwardly into the axial cavity (14) such that free ends (18A) of the conductive fibers (18) jointly lie circumferentially along a first virtual circle or circumference “d” having a first predetermined shaft accommodating diameter…” – since the fibers 18 extend inwardly toward the shaft from the cartridges and only the free ends 18A touch the shaft, the guide element has no contact with the shaft surface during normal operation}.
PNG
media_image12.png
468
890
media_image12.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 29/23/15, Timm teaches the device of claim 23, and further teaches wherein the axial offset between the shaft grounding device [10] and the rotatable shaft [d] is less than the offset limit when the shaft grounding device [10] is in the mounted state on the rotatable shaft [d] (any way it gets displaced, the shaft cannot move radially beyond guide elements [16], such that the offset is necessarily always less than the offset limit) .
Claims 15 and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Franke (DE 102018208823 A1, provided by Applicant in IDS, but cited herein again and provided with a different machine translation, which will be used by the Examiner).
With respect to claim 15, Franke teaches a shaft grounding device [contact element 6] for electrically conductively connecting a rotatable shaft [4] and a housing [external component 5] (see abstract and fig. 1), the shaft grounding device [6] being mechanically and electrically connected to the housing [5] (see abstract and ¶ 0005 of the provided translation), the shaft grounding device [6] comprising:
PNG
media_image13.png
476
1056
media_image13.png
Greyscale
contact elements [lamellae 12], each of the contact elements [12] being elastically bendable and electrically conductive {¶ 0023 recites “the lamellae 12 are flexible or resilient and form a sliding contact between the rotatable rotor shaft 4 and the contacting element 6…” – the abstract establishes that they are electrically conducive as being part of “conductive body (8)”}, the contact elements [12] contacting the rotatable shaft [4] to form a sliding contact that is electrically conductive with a circumferential surface of the rotatable shaft [4] (see last seven lines of the abstract and ¶ 0008) or a sleeve on the rotatable shaft, the contact elements [12] preloading the sliding contact (¶ 0008 recites “the at least one flexible lamella or lamella spring is formed on the body. The lamella is in this case a thin, disk-shaped element, for example in the form of a leaf spring, which can fit snugly against the outside of the shaft…”); and
at least one guide element [slip ring 7], one or more of the at least one guide element [7] contacting the rotatable shaft [4] or the sleeve on the rotatable shaft when an axial offset between the shaft grounding device and the rotatable shaft [4] reaches an offset limit (the inner radius or inner edge of 7 – see new annotated excerpt of figs. 2-3 attached below, wherein the Examiner has labeled the offset limit) to prevent the axial offset from increasing beyond the offset limit (the inner radius or inner edge of 7) and one or more of the contact elements from being bent further (beyond the inner radius or edge of 7) as the shaft grounding device [1] is mounted onto the rotatable shaft [4] (¶ 0024 recites “here, end pieces 13 of the finger-shaped lamellae 12 are arranged resting on an end face 14 of the slip ring 7. Here, the slip ring forms a step in an outer side of the rotor shaft…” Thus, the slip ring, by being a solid annular object contacting the shaft and surrounding it, will prohibit radial drifting/movement of the shaft away from its axis, in such a way that the contact elements 12 cannot be folded/bent at all.)
PNG
media_image14.png
450
720
media_image14.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 24/15, Franke teaches the shaft grounding device [10] of claim 15, Franke further teaches a transmission [electric drive unit including electric machine 1] for a motor vehicle (see abstract which recites “an electric drive unit of a motor vehicle”), comprising;
a housing [5];
a shaft [4] mounted in the housing [5] (see abstract and ¶ 0011, 0012, and 0024-0025);
the shaft grounding device [6] of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above), the shaft grounding device [6] grounding the shaft [4] (see ¶ 0007 and 0024).
With respect to claim 25/24/15, Franke teaches the transmission of claim 24, wherein the shaft [4] forms an output shaft of the transmission [1] (see ¶ 0002).
With respect to claim 26/24/15, Franke teaches the transmission of claim 24, and further comprises an electric machine [1 including a stator and a rotor], the shaft [4] being drivable by the electric machine [1] (see ¶ 0002).
With respect to claim 27/15, Franke teaches the shaft grounding device [10] of claim 15, Franke further teaches an electric axle drive unit [electric drive unit including electric machine 1] for a motor vehicle (see abstract which recites “an electric drive unit of a motor vehicle”), the electric axle drive unit comprising;
a housing [5];
a shaft [4] mounted in the housing [5] (see abstract and ¶ 0011, 0012, and 0024-0025);
the shaft grounding device [6] of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above), the shaft grounding device [6] grounding the shaft [4] (see ¶ 0007 and 0024).
PNG
media_image15.png
605
321
media_image15.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 28/15, Franke teaches the shaft grounding device [10] of claim 15, Franke further teaches an electric machine [electric drive unit including electric machine 1] comprising;
a housing [5];
a rotationally fixed stator [2] (see ¶ 0002 and fig. 1 excerpt attached above);
a rotatable rotor [3] coupled to a rotor shaft [4], the rotor shaft [4] being mounted in the housing [5] (still referring to fig. 1 and ¶ 0002);
the shaft grounding device [6] of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above), the shaft grounding device [6] grounding the rotor shaft [4] (see ¶ 0007 and 0024).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
An updated search yielded a new reference that was not previously cited, and which has been included in attached PTO Form 892. However, the reference does not materially affect the prosecution.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANIEL K SCHLAK whose telephone number is (703)756-1685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:00 pm EST.
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.
/Daniel K Schlak/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights