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 . Claims 1-10 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/18/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “GROUNDING BRUSH ASSMBLY WITH BRUSH FITTING PLATE HAVING TONGUES AND LUGS WITH DEFORMATIONS ON THE LUGS”
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.
Dependent Claim 10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Dependent claim 10, recites “at least one grounding brush assembly” as a new recitation which is confusing if it is the same recited limitation in claim 1 or a new limitation. Examiner will assume it is the limitation recited in claim 1. Clarification is needed.
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1-5,8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnault et al. (US PG Pub 20210364040 hereinafter “Arnault”) in view of Beyfuss (US PG Pub 20140064651 hereinafter “Beyfuss”).
Re-claim 1, Arnault discloses grounding brush assembly (see title, fig.1 and fig.2) comprising: a grounding brush (42) including a support (52) and a plurality of conductive fibers (46) fitted at least partially inside the support; and a brush fitting plate (40) connected with the support (52) of the grounding brush (42), the fitting plate (40) including a plurality of retention tongues (48) configured to retain the support of the brush (retain 52), a radial portion (annotated fig.1 and fig.2,location or 20, or 22) a plurality of lugs (18,20) extending from the radial portion (annotated fig.1), the plurality of lugs (18,20) being spaced circumferentially apart (see fig.2, showing at least 3 of 18,20 are spaced apart circumferentially around), offset radially outwardly (see annotated fig.2) from the plurality of retention tongues (48), and at least one local deformation (20) formed on one of the plurality of lugs (18,22) and extending radially inwardly (hole extending radially inward, see fig.2 annotation).
Even though, 20 and 18 substantially define an outer diameter, but Arnault is silent to explicitly teach that the lugs defining the outer diameter of the fitting plate.
However, Beyfuss shows the lugs (204) defining the outer diameter of the fitting plate (102, see fig.7 annotation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to show the lugs of Arnault define the outer diameter of the fitting plate as shown by Beyfuss providing radially outward oriented hook that is resilient providing better improved axial fixing to latch the edge properly and captively hold the plate in place (Beyfuss, P[0054-0056)).
PNG
media_image1.png
695
811
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
667
753
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
567
692
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
799
642
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
578
754
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Re-claim 2, Arnault as modified discloses the assembly according to claim 1, wherein the at least one local deformation (20) extends from the free end (free end is 16) of the one lug (20,18) of the fitting plate (40).
Re-claim 3, Arnault as modified discloses the assembly according to claim 1, wherein the at least one local deformation (19) is formed along a portion (portion of 16between 16a, 16b, axially) of an axial length of the one lug (166, 16a of 18,22) of the fitting plate (14,40).
Re-claim 4, Arnault as modified discloses the assembly according to claim 1, wherein the at least one local deformation (19) is formed along an entire axial length (annotated fig.4 from Arnault) of the one lug (20) of the fitting plate (40, see fig.4, deformation 19 extend from top to bottom which is an axial length of lug 20).
Re-claim 5, Arnault as modified discloses assembly according to claim 1, wherein the local deformation (20) defines a hollow (opening) facing radially outwardly (annotated fig.1 and fig.2, and fig.4, opening facing inwardly and outwardly) from the one lug (20).
Re-claim 8, Arnault as modified discloses the assembly according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of retention tongues (48) extend from the radial portion (annotated fig.1) of the fitting plate (40).
Re-claim 9, Arnault as modified discloses the assembly according to claim 1, wherein the radial portion of the fitting plate (annotated fig.4) is supported axially (annotated fig.4 shows the against the support axially) against the support (annotated fig.4) of the brush (14).
Re-claim 10, Arnault as modified discloses the electric motor (P[0019],2,3,1 are components of motor) comprising: a housing (3); a shaft (2); and the at least one grounding brush assembly according to claim 1, the grounding brush assembly (14) being fitted radially between the housing and the shaft (see fig.3), the conductive fibers (46) of the brush of the assembly being in contact with the shaft (2, see fig.3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re-claim 6 recites “inter alia” : 1. A grounding brush assembly comprising: a grounding brush including a support and a plurality of conductive fibers fitted at least partially inside the support; and a brush fitting plate connected with the support of the grounding brush, the fitting plate including a plurality of retention tongues configured to retain the support of the brush, a radial portion, a plurality of lugs extending from the radial portion, the plurality of lugs being spaced circumferentially apart, offset radially outwardly from the plurality of retention tongues and defining the outer diameter of the fitting plate, and at least one local deformation formed on one of the plurality of lugs and extending radially inwardly.6. The assembly according to claim 1, wherein the at least one local deformation includes a plurality of local deformations formed on the plurality of lugs of the fitting plate, each one of the plurality of local deformations extending radially inwardly and the plurality of local deformations being circumferentially spaced apart.”
PNG
media_image6.png
711
600
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The prior art of record teach plurality of lugs and tongues, but they fail to teach the deformation structure as incited in the combination of claims 1 and 6 combined. The combination is found to be unique and is allowable. Prior art of record, ip.com search, AI search and Global Dossier Search fail to teach alone or in combination the combined limitations of claims 1 and 6 as indicated above.
Claim 7 is objected to based on dependency from claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in PTO892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAGED M ALMAWRI whose telephone number is (313)446-6565. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher M. Koehler can be reached on 5712723560. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAGED M ALMAWRI/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834