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.
Claim 11 is 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.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear what is meant by the phrase “a plurality of external electrical components such that the second current is delivered to the plurality of external electrical components, or a combination thereof”. For examining purposes, the limitations at question will be interpreted as being taught by the prior art. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 & 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cutsforth (US 20160111838).
1. Cutsforth teaches:
A carbon brush (24) configured to be implemented in an alternator device (see generators, para 0003), the carbon brush (24) comprising a carbon block (top end of brush that the end 662 of sensor 60 is connected to, fig 6A) configured to deliver a current (via wires 540, fig 5A) and a health sensor 60 operatively coupled to the carbon block (fig 6A) configured to detect a lifespan of the carbon block (a wear indicator is synonymous with detecting the lifespan of the block) and alert a user (via LED 55) when the lifespan reaches a predetermined threshold (of wearing past the area of the brush where the end 662 of the sensor is connected to the brush, fig 6A).
2. Cutsforth teaches:
The carbon brush (144) of claim 1, wherein alerting the user when the lifespan reaches the predetermined threshold comprises actuating one or more warning lights (140) operatively coupled to one or more slip rings.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cutsforth in view of Christiansen et al. (WO 2021249813).
7. Cutsforth has been discussed above, re claim 1; but does not teach that the carbon block further comprises a copper interior component.
Christiansen et al. teach that the carbon block further comprises a copper interior component to support an improved current density from the current source (excerpt below), which would improve the reliability of the alternator.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention being effectively filed to modify the invention of Cutsforth so that the carbon block further comprises a copper interior component, as taught by Christiansen et al. so as to improve the reliability of the alternator.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander et al. (US 3659188) in view of Cutsforth.
8. Alexander et al. teach:
An alternator device 12 comprising:
a. a shaft component (this inherent with an alternator, MPEP 2112) defining an axis (this inherent with an alternator, MPEP 2112);
b. a rotor component (the rotor carries the field winding 40, fig 1) disposed on the shaft component (this inherent with an alternator, MPEP 2112), configured to rotate on the axis upon receiving a first current and a rotation force;
c. one or more slip rings 36 disposed along the shaft (this inherent with an alternator, MPEP 2112), configured to receive the first current and deliver the first current to the rotor component (this inherent with an alternator, MPEP 2112);
d. one or more brushes 38 disposed adjacent to the one or more slip rings (this inherent with an alternator, MPEP 2112) such that the one or more brushes contact the one or more slip rings (this inherent with an alternator, MPEP 2112); and
e. a battery (10) operatively coupled to the one or more brushes, configured to deliver the first current to the one or more carbon brushes; but does not teach that the brushes are carbon brushes and each carbon brush comprising a carbon block configured to deliver the first current to the one or more slip rings and a health sensor operatively coupled to the carbon block configured to detect a lifespan of the carbon block and alert a user when the lifespan reaches a predetermined threshold.
Cutsforth teaches that the brushes 24 are carbon brushes and each carbon brush comprising a carbon block 24 configured to deliver the first current (via wires 540, fig 5A) to the one or more slip rings 12 and a health sensor 60 operatively coupled to the carbon block configured to detect a lifespan of the carbon block (a wear indicator is synonymous with detecting the lifespan of the block) and alert a user (via LED 55) when the lifespan reaches a predetermined threshold (of wearing past the area of the brush where the end 662 of the sensor is connected to the brush, fig 6A) to prolong the service life of the alternator.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention being effectively filed to modify the invention of Alexander et al. so that the brushes are carbon brushes and each carbon brush comprising a carbon block configured to deliver the first current to the one or more slip rings and a health sensor operatively coupled to the carbon block configured to detect a lifespan of the carbon block and alert a user when the lifespan reaches a predetermined threshold, as taught by Cutsforth so as to prolong the service life of the alternator.
Claim(s) 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander et al. in view of Cutsforth and in further view of Kometani et al. (US 7067949).
9. Alexander et al. has been discussed above, re claim 8; but does not explicitly teach a stator component disposed adjacent to the rotor component, comprising a stator magnet system, wherein the rotor component comprises a rotor magnet system, wherein the stator magnet system is configured to generate a second current upon interacting with the rotor magnet system as the rotor component rotates.
Kometani et al. teach that a stator component 8 disposed adjacent to the rotor component 7, comprising a stator magnet system 15 and 16, wherein the rotor component comprises a rotor magnet system 13, 20, and 21, wherein the stator magnet system is configured to generate a second current upon interacting with the rotor magnet system as the rotor component rotates (this is the principle of operation of an alternator, MPEP 2112) to make a more powerful alternator.
Consequently, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention of Alexander et al. being effectively filed to modify it such with a stator component disposed adjacent to the rotor component, comprising a stator magnet system, wherein the rotor component comprises a rotor magnet system, wherein the stator magnet system is configured to generate a second current upon interacting with the rotor magnet system as the rotor component rotates, as taught by Kometani et al., so as to make a more powerful alternator.
10. Alexander et al. teach:
The alternator device of claim 9 further comprising a rectifier (32) operatively coupled to the battery (10) and the stator component (30a-30c), wherein the second current comprises an alternating current (since there is a rectifier, MPEP 2112), wherein the rectifier (32) is configured to convert the alternating current into a direct current.
11. Alexander et al. teach:
The alternator device of claim 9, wherein the stator component (30a-30c) is operatively coupled to the battery (10) such that the second current is delivered to the battery (10, fig 1), a plurality of external electrical components such that the second current is delivered to the plurality of external electrical components, or a combination thereof.
12. Alexander et al. in view of Cutsforth teach:
The alternator device of claim 8 further comprising a regulator (14) operatively coupled to the one or more carbon brushes (of Cutsforth) and the battery (10), configured to regulate an amount of power in the first current.
13. Alexander et al. in view of Cutsforth teach:
The alternator device of claim 8, wherein alerting the user when the lifespan reaches the predetermined threshold comprises actuating one or more warning lights (LEDs of Cutsforth) operatively coupled to the one or more slip rings (either one of Alexander et al. or Cutsforth).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Alexander et al. In view of Cutsforth and in further view of Christiansen et al..
18. Alexander et al. has been discussed above, re claim 8; but does not teach that the carbon block further comprises a copper interior component.
Christiansen et al. teach that the carbon block further comprises a copper interior component to support an improved current density from the current source (excerpt below), which would improve the reliability of the alternator.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention being effectively filed to modify the invention of Alexander et al. so that the carbon block further comprises a copper interior component, as taught by Christiansen et al. so as to improve the reliability of the alternator.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The primary reason for allowing claim 19 is that the makeup of the sensor was not disclosed. The closest prior art Cutsforth and Alexander et al.. Cutsforth in view of Alexander et al. discloses the gist of claim 19 except for the wherein the health sensor comprises a carbon tube sensor comprising a thermal insulator layer, disposed within the carbon block such that when the carbon block reaches the predetermined threshold, the thermal insulator layer is at least partially removed and the carbon tube sensor contacts the one or more slip rings such that a lifespan current is delivered to the one or more warning lights such that the one or more warning lights turn on. Consequently, Neither Cutsforth nor Alexander et al. or any combination thereof anticipate/makes obvious the aforementioned limitations. This is why claim 19 is allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 3-6 and 14-17 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.
The primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter in claim 3 is that it contains similar allowable subject matter as claim 19, and this is why the claim is being objected to. Claims 4-6 depend from claim 3 and this is why they are being objected to.
The primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter in claim 14 is that it contains similar allowable subject matter as claim 19, and this is why the claim is being objected to. Claims 15-17 depend from claim 14 and this is why they are being objected to.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRANCE L KENERLY whose telephone number is (571)270-7851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Christopher Koehler can be reached at 5712723560. 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.
/TERRANCE L KENERLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834