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 § 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 28, 30, 38 and 40 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.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the brush adapter" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the brush adapter" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the brush adapter" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 40 recites the limitation "the brush adapter" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,068,658 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 21 and 22 are being anticipated by claim 14 of the US. Patent No. 12,068,658 B2.
Instant Application
US. Patent No. 12,068,658 B2
21. A generator assembly comprising:
a stator;
a rotor;
a support structure that is stationary with respect to the stator;
a rotating slip ring in electrical communication with the rotor; and
a static brush assembly configured to conduct electrical current from the rotating slipring, the static brush assembly configured to attach to an exterior surface of the support structure in a different direction than an axial direction of the rotating slip ring,
wherein the static brush assembly comprises a tongue and the support structure comprises a groove, the tongue configured to slide along the groove during installation.
22. The generator assembly as defined in claim 21, wherein the static brush assembly comprises:
a brush holder having a first attachment point oriented in an axial direction with respect to the rotating slip ring; and
a brush adapter configured to attach to the brush holder at the first attachment point.
1. A generator assembly, comprising:
a stator;
a rotor;
a support structure that is stationary with respect to the stator;
a rotating slip ring in electrical communication with the rotor; and
a static brush assembly configured to conduct electrical current from the rotating slip ring, the static brush assembly configured to attach to an exterior surface of the support structure in a different direction than an axial direction of the rotating slip ring,
wherein the static brush assembly comprises:
a brush holder having a first attachment point oriented in an axial direction with respect to the rotating slip ring; and
a brush adapter configured to attach to the brush holder at the first attachment point, and having a second attachment point configured to attach to the support structure in a second direction different than the axial direction.
11. The generator assembly as defined in claim 1, wherein the support structure and the brush adapter are configured to limit installation of the brush adapter to the support structure to a single degree of freedom.
14. The generator assembly as defined in claim 11, wherein the brush adapter comprises a tongue and the support structure comprises a groove, the tongue and groove configured to limit the installation of the brush adapter to the support structure to the single degree of freedom.
See claim 1 section (g) & (h).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 21, 26-29, 31 and 36-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moore et al. (US 2005/0285472 A1).
RE claim 21, Moore teaches a generator assembly 10 (Fig.2) comprising:
a stator 22;
a rotor 24;
a support structure 16 that is stationary with respect to the stator 22;
a rotating slip ring (26, 28) in electrical communication with the rotor 24 (see ¶ 28); and
a static brush assembly 42 configured to conduct electrical current from the rotating slipring (26, 28) (¶ 28), the static brush assembly 42 configured to attach to an exterior surface of the support structure 16 (Fig.1) in a different direction (radial direction) than an axial direction of the rotating slip ring (26, 28), wherein the static brush assembly 42 comprises a tongue 44 and the support structure 16 comprises a groove (G) (see annotated Fig.3), the tongue 44 configured to slide along the groove (G) during installation (see Fig.3).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Groove (G))]
PNG
media_image1.png
782
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
RE claim 26/21, Moore teaches the groove (G) of the support structure 16 is aligned with a direction of contact between the static brush assembly 42 and the slip rings (26, 28).
RE claim 27/21, Moore teaches the brush holder 46 is a multi-piece assembly (48, 50) (see Fig.2).
RE claim 28/21, Moore teaches the brush adapter 42 is a single piece (Fig.2).
RE claim 29/21, Moore teaches the support structure 16 comprises a generator support housing 16 configured to support a distal end of the rotor 24 (Fig.2).
RE claim 31, Moore teaches a generator assembly 10 (Fig.2), comprising: a stator 22; a rotor 24; a support structure 16 that is stationary with respect to the stator 22; a rotating slip ring (26, 28) in electrical communication with the rotor 24 (¶ 28); and a static brush assembly 42 configured to conduct electrical current from the rotating slip ring (26, 28), the static brush assembly 42 configured to attach to an exterior surface of the support structure 16 in a different direction (radial direction) than an axial direction of the rotating slip ring (26, 28), wherein the support structure 16 comprises a tongue (T) (see annotated Fig.2 below) and the static brush assembly comprises a groove (G) (groove formed inside of surface 56), the groove configured to slide along the tongue (T) during installation.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Tongue (T))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Groove (G))]
PNG
media_image2.png
1086
784
media_image2.png
Greyscale
RE claim 36/31, Moore teaches the tongue (T) of the support structure 16 is aligned with a direction of contact between the static brush assembly 46 and the slip rings (26, 28) (Fig.2).
RE claim 37/31, Moore teaches the brush holder 46 is a multi-piece assembly (48, 50) (Fig.2).
RE claim 38/31, Moore teaches the brush adapter 42 is a single piece (Fig.2).
RE claim 39/31, Moore teaches the support structure 16 comprises a generator support housing 16 configured to support a distal end of the rotor 24 (Fig.2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 30 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore in view of Prell et al. (US 6133665).
RE claim 30/21, Moore has been discussed above. Moore does not teach the support structure and the brush adapter are configured to limit installation of the brush adapter to the support structure to a single degree of freedom.
Prell teaches support structure 46 and the brush adapter 42 are configured to limit installation of the brush adapter 42 to the support structure to a single degree of freedom (inside grooved 44) (see Fig.3), such that so that the brushes can be replaced when worn (col.3: 35-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moore by having the support structure and the brush adapter are configured to limit installation of the brush adapter to the support structure to a single degree of freedom, as taught by Prell, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 40/31, the claim is rejected for similar reason as claim 30/21.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-25 and 32-35 are 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.
RE claim 23, the prior-art does not teach, inter alia, the generator assembly as defined in claim 22, wherein the second direction is perpendicular to the axial direction.
RE claim 24, the prior-art does not teach, inter alia, the generator assembly as defined in claim 22, wherein the support structure comprises a slot, at least one of the brush holder or the brush adapter configured to be positioned within the slot while the brush adapter is attached to the support structure and attached to the brush holder.
Claim 25 is allowable for their dependency on claim 24.
RE claim 32, the prior-art does not teach, inter alia, the static brush assembly comprises: a brush holder having a first attachment point oriented in an axial direction with respect to the rotating slip ring; and a brush adapter configured to attach to the brush holder at the first attachment point.
Claims 33-35 are allowable for their dependency on claim 32.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM 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.
/THOMAS TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834