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 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 objected to because of the following informalities: the word “groove” is misspelled as “grove.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 term “in particular” in claims 7 and 14, renders the claims indefinite because it describes a broader limitation followed by a narrow limitation. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. In this Office action, “in particular” is not given a patentable weight in interpreting any claim.
The term “preferably” in claims 3-4, 7, 9, 11 and 17 renders the claims indefinite because it is not clear if the limitations recited after the term are required by the claim or not, thus causing doubts abouts the metes and bounds of the claims. In this Office action, “preferably” is not given a patentable weight in interpreting any claim.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1, 5-8, 10-13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griesbach, M. (WO 2023094195 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
579
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Griesbach discloses a discharge device (fig. 2) for discharging electrical currents from a rotor part (53, fig. 4) of a machine (fig. 4), the rotor part having a shaft (see the abstract: “The invention relates to an arrangement for grounding a shaft (7), in particular a rotor shaft of an electric machine”), the discharge device comprising
a movable contact element (movable contact, annotated fig. 2) at least partially accommodated in a guide (guide, annotated fig. 2) having a guide wall (guide wall, annotated fig. 2) and an outer wall (outer wall, annotated fig. 2),
the contact element being configured to form an electrically conductive sliding contact (grounding the shaft via pressing a contact element against a surface of the shaft) between a sliding-contact surface of the contact element and a shaft contact surface of the shaft (shaft contact surface, annotated fig. 2),
the sliding-contact surface being intended to form the sliding contact (see the abstract: “The grounding hub (13) is additionally electrically conductively connected to the shaft (7) to be grounded via a sliding contact (15) which is formed on a contact element (16), wherein the contact element (16) is guided in a holder (17) which is fastened to the grounding hub (13) at the end face of the grounding hub (13).”), the contact element being connected to the guide and/or a support element of the machine in an electrically conductive manner (see the abstract), and
the contact element being preloaded in the direction of the shaft contact surface by a spring element (spring, annotated fig. 2),
the contact element being at least partially wetted with an oily fluid (implied, see the oil surrounding the movable contact and the contact surface of the shaft), wherein
at least one conduit (conduit, annotated fig. 2) for the oily fluid is provided in the guide, the conduit ending in the outer wall (see annotated fig. 2) or being disposed in the outer wall of the guide.
Regarding claim 5, Griesbach discloses the discharge device according to claim 1, wherein the conduit is a channel running in the guide (the two up and down channels shown in fig. 2 are running in the guiding structure).
Regarding claim 6, Griesbach discloses the discharge device according to claim 1, further comprising at least one further conduit for the oily fluid, the conduit being disposed in the guide and ending in an upper end face of the guide (see annotated fig. 2, one is conduit is in the upper face and the other in the lower face).
Regarding claim 7, Griesbach discloses the discharge device according to claim 1, wherein at least part of the guide is made of a low-resistance material, electrically conductive material, which is in particular a metallic material such as steel or aluminum.”).
Regarding claim 8, Griesbach discloses the discharge device according to claim 1, wherein the guide is configured to be connected to a stator part of the machine in an electrically conductive manner (see the abstract: “a grounding hub (13) which is tubular at least in sections and is electrically conductively connected to an electrical ground, preferably a housing.”, the stator is electrically connected to the housing).
Regarding claim 10, Griesbach discloses the discharge device according to claim 1, wherein the contact element is a pin-shaped or bolt-shaped brush (see annotated fig. 2; see also: “The electrically conductive connection between the grounding hub and the rotor shaft is formed by sliding contact between the carbon pin and the carbon brush holder.”).
Regarding claim 11, Griesbach discloses the discharge device according to claim 1, wherein the spring element is a helical compression spring, one end of which is the end face of the contact element opposite the sliding-contact surface (see: “The spring element is particularly preferably a helical spring, although a compact design of a spring element would also be conceivable, such as a plate spring or a corrugated spring. The contact element is guided in the holder in particular in an axially displaceable manner and is then also prestressed axially against the contact surface.”; see also the spring in annotated fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Griesbach discloses a machine comprising a rotor part having a shaft (abstract: “The invention relates to an arrangement for grounding a shaft (7), in particular a rotor shaft of an electric machine”) and a discharge device according to claim 1, the contact element of the discharge device contacting the shaft with its sliding-contact surface to form a sliding contact (see annotated fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Griesbach discloses the machine according to claim 12, wherein the discharge device is supported by a support element (support, annotated fig. 2), the mouth of the conduit in the outer wall not being covered by the support element (see annotated fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, Griesbach discloses the discharge device according to claim 5, wherein the channel
Regarding claim 18, Griesbach discloses the discharge device according to claim 6, wherein the conduit extends from a lid of the guide (horizontal entrance of the oil channel in fig. 2), to the upper end face of the guide (see annotated fig. 2).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griesbach, M. (WO 2023094195 A1) in view of Lee, S. (US 20230353021 A1).
PNG
media_image2.png
446
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Griesbach discloses the discharge device according to claim 10, but is silent about: wherein the sliding-contact surface is rectangular, polygonal or circular.
Lee teaches a similar sliding-contact surface wherein the sliding-contact surface is rectangular, polygonal or circular (see fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that: the sliding-contact surface is rectangular, polygonal or circular.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 9, 14-16 and 19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MASOUD VAZIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-2340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm 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, the examiner’s supervisor, SEYE IWARERE can be reached on (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.
/MASOUD VAZIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834