DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Applicant filing on 7.23.26. Claims 15-16,18-29,31-36 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments and Amendments
The Applicant has made no amendment to the independent or dependent claims, added new dependent claims 35-36 and canceled claims 17,30 which will be examined below.
With respect to 35 U.S.C 102 and 103 rejections, the Applicant provides several arguments to which the Examiner will respond accordingly:
Applicant Argument 1: The Examiner's position that Klein's grooves "traverse a bearing face" depends impermissibly on the proportions and relative positions of features depicted in Klein's Figures 2 and 7. Klein nowhere states that its figures are drawn to scale and is silent as to the axial dimensions and positions of any bearing relative to the grooves. Under MPEP § 2125(II), "[w]hen the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value," and "patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue." MPEP § 2125(II) (quoting Hockerson-Halberstadi, Inc. V. Avia Group Int'l, 222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). The Examiner's inference that a bearing "Be" sits axially over the grooves such that "the grooves traverse a bearing face" is therefore unsupported.
Examiner Response 1: Examiner respectfully disagrees. According to Merriam Webster dictionary, the closest meaning of word “traverse” in regards to instant application is “to lie or extend across”. Further MPEP 2125 states “ For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979)”. Examiner believes that Klein is sufficient to read on Claim 15 as shown in previous Office Action specifically “one or more grooves (62g,63g are stepped groves from longitudinal grooves 62,63 Para 0033) that run in the axial direction (AA) from a connecting region (121c) of the shaft part (121) to the support element (121s), wherein the one or more grooves traverse a bearing face (Be,59 face in Fig 2) (Taking Fig 2, Fig 7 and Para 0033 together shows bus bars 54,53 lying in the groove 62,63 and below bearing Be,59 in Fig 2)”. Further the argument regarding “the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value," and "patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue” is not persuasive as the core issue here is the location of bearing face in relation to grooves and it has nothing to do with dimensions or proportions. Therefore, keeping in mind claim recitation and Examiner interpretation of “traverse” using dictionary meaning, Klein is sufficient to read on independent claim 15.
Applicant Argument 2: Klein's text is likewise silent on the disputed limitation. Klein discloses only that the rotor shaft 121 is "mounted rotatably" in ball bearings "receive[d]" in the housing bearing plates 101 and 102. See Klein, paragraph [0028]. Klein gives no axial location of those bearings relative to the grooves. Klein describes the longitudinal grooves 62 and 63 solely relative to the slip-ring-carrier section and the winding wire ends of the rotor winding, stating that "[t]he longitudinal grooves 62 and 63 extend beyond that section of the rotor shaft 121 which carries the slip ring arrangement 50, and extend as far as the winding wire ends of the rotor winding." Klein, paragraph [0033]. Klein further describes the grooves' purpose as receiving the busbars with a plastic overmolding 61 that "ensures the electric insulation of the busbars from the rotor shaft 121." Klein, paragraph [0034]. Klein never describes any bearing face on the shaft in the region of the grooves, never describes a bearing seated over the grooves, and never describes the grooves as traversing a bearing face. Because the text supplies no such teaching, the drawings cannot be combined with the description to cure the silence.
Examiner Response 2: The basis for Examiner’s interpretation and mapping is already provided above and in previous Office action.
Applicant Argument 3: Klein's Applicant further submits that new claim 35 is separately patentable over Klein. Claim 35 recites that "the bearing face is disposed on the shaft part and defines a bearing seat on which an inner race of a bearing is seated, and wherein the bearing seat is interrupted by the one or more grooves." This claim adds specific structure beyond claim 15: it requires that the bearing face itself defines a bearing seat on which an inner race of a bearing is seated, and that this same bearing seat is interrupted by the one or more grooves. This is a specific structural relationship among the bearing's inner race, a bearing seat defined on the shaft, and the grooves that Klein does not disclose. Klein locates its bearings in the housing, not on the shaft. Klein teaches that the bearing plates 101 and 102 "form a housing" and "receive ball bearings, in which the rotor 12 with the rotor shaft 121 is mounted rotatably." See Klein, paragraph [0028]. Klein thus discloses only that the shaft is journalled in ball bearings held by the housing plates; it never describes any bearing seat defined on the shaft, nor an inner race seated on such a shaft seat.
Examiner Response 3: The Applicant has added new claim 35 which will be prosecuted in below sections. However, Examiner notes that any rolling bearing with have two parts, one connected to a rotational part and the other to a stationary part. Therefore, without providing additional limitation on bearing seat structure, that part of rotating shaft that supports bearing inner race can be taken as bearing face which is shown in Klein annotated Fig.2.
Applicant Argument 4: Moreover, Klein's grooved shaft section is described as a slip-ring/busbar carrier, not a bearing seat. Klein describes grooves 62 and 63 as located "in that section of the rotor shaft 121 which is the carrier of the slip ring arrangement 50." See Klein, paragraph [0033]. Klein further explains that the grooves' sole described function is to receive the busbars, whose plastic overmolding 61 "ensures the electric insulation of the busbars from the rotor shaft 121." See Klein, paragraph [0034]. Klein therefore teaches the grooved region as a slip- ring/insulation region, never as a bearing seat carrying an inner race, and never describes that region's grooves as "interrupting" any bearing seat.
Examiner Response 4: As shown before in previous Office action, Figs 2 and 7 along with Fig 6 is sufficient to address above argument. In Klein, power is transmitted from slip ring 51,52 to connecting region 121c and Fig 2 shows bus bars 53,54 lying underneath bearing Be and Fig 7 shows the grooves extending to the start of the rotor section where the power needs to be communicated to.
Applicant Argument 5: The Examiner's drawing-based inference cannot supply the missing structure. Even accepting arguendo the Examiner's inference of a bearing location "Be" somewhere axially between the winding wire ends and the slip rings, that at most posits where a housing-held bearing sits along the axis. It does not and cannot supply the affirmative structural teaching that claim 35 requires-namely an inner race seated directly on a bearing seat defined on the shaft, with that seat interrupted by the grooves. Klein is silent on this in both its text and its figures, so the inference cannot cure the deficiency. Accordingly, claim 35 is patentable over Klein for at least these additional reasons.
Examiner Response 5: The Applicant has added new claim 35 which will be prosecuted in below sections.
Applicant Argument 6: Applicant further submits that claim 25 is separately patentable over Klein. Claim 25 recites that the rotor shaft "in the connecting region of the shaft part comprises a ring which runs radially about the shaft part and has one or more contact elements for connecting the corresponding one or more module lines." The Examiner has alleged that Klein discloses this limitation by annotating Klein's Figure 6 with a shape labeled "Ri" and contact "Co." However, Klein's text discloses no such radial ring bearing contact elements. Klein describes only that each busbar (53, 54) connects through a contact tab (55, 56) directly to a respective winding wire end (57, 58) of the rotor winding. See Klein, paragraph [0029]. A bare, unlabeled feature discerned from a drawing, unsupported by the reference's text, cannot anticipate under the same MPEP § 2125 principle argued above for claim 15. Accordingly, claim 25 is separately patentable over Klein.
Examiner Response 6: Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is clear looking at Klein Figs 2 and 6 that annotated Ri is ring shaped which is busbar 53,54 ends Co coming out which is also shown connected to 58 which is rotor winding end. The basis for Examiner using Klein’s drawings to read on claim 25 is already answered in Examiner Response 1. However, Examiner will consider the “anticipation” argument in below sections.
Applicant Argument 7: Applicant further submits that claim 32 is separately patentable over Klein. Claim 32 recites that "the one or more module lines run below the bearing face in a wall of the shaft part." Klein teaches the opposite: the busbars 53, 54 lie in longitudinal grooves 62, 63 and, with the overmolding 61, "can possibly be received in the longitudinal grooves 62 and 63 completely in the radial direction, or can protrude radially beyond the longitudinal grooves 62 and 63." See Klein, paragraph [0033]. Klein thus describes open grooves whose contents may project radially outward, not module lines buried below a bearing face within the shaft wall. The Examiner again relies on combining Figures 2 and 7 to infer this limitation; the same drawing-inference rebuttal applies, now reinforced by Klein's contrary text. Accordingly, claim 32 is separately patentable over Klein.
Examiner Response 7: Examiner respectfully disagrees with above characterization of Para0033 Klein. Para0033 discloses “The busbars 53 and 54 including the plastic overmolding 61 can possibly be received in the longitudinal grooves 62 and 63 completely in the radial direction, or can protrude radially beyond the longitudinal grooves 62 and 63”. The underlined addresses above argument “not module lines buried below a bearing face within the shaft wall” and the option of “protrude radially beyond” is in the alternative, therefore not relevant to reading on instant claim recitation.
Applicant Argument 8: Applicant further submits that claim 16 is separately patentable over Klein. Claim 16 recites that "the bearing face encloses the one or more grooves and the one or more electrically conducting module lines in a radially encircling manner about the axial direction." Klein nowhere discloses a bearing face that radially encloses the grooves and module lines. To the contrary, Klein expressly permits the busbars and overmolding to "protrude radially beyond the longitudinal grooves 62 and 63" rather than being radially enclosed. See Klein, paragraph [0033]. This is a distinct deficiency, and claim 16 is separately patentable over Klein.
Examiner Response 8: As shown above Para 0033 of Klein discloses “The busbars 53 and 54 including the plastic overmolding 61 can possibly be received in the longitudinal grooves 62 and 63 completely in the radial direction”. In Klein Fig 2, bearing Be is around 53,54, therefore Be bearing face is “radially encircling” module lines 53,54 about the axial direction.
Applicant Argument 9:Applicant further submits that claims 18 and 34 are separately patentable over Klein. Claim 18 recites that the module lines are disposed in "an electrically isolating support" that, "proceeding in each case from an end face of the base element of the slip ring module, extend in the axial direction toward the connecting region," with the grooves configured to receive that support. Claim 34, which depends from claim 18, further recites that "the one or more grooves are completely filled by the corresponding one or more supports." The Examiner has equated the "support" with Klein's plastic overmolding 61, but Klein describes overmolding 61 only as an overmolding of the busbars whose function is that it "ensures the electric insulation of the busbars from the rotor shaft 121"-not a support extending axially from an end face of the base element. See Klein, paragraph [0034]. Klein also expressly allows the overmolding to only partially occupy or protrude beyond the grooves, contradicting claim 34's "completely filled" requirement. See Klein, paragraph [0033]. Accordingly, claims 18 and 34 are separately patentable over Klein.
Examiner Response 9: Examiner has shown the claim element mapping in previous Office action wherein 61 is electrically isolating support. Examiner does not understand Applicant argument “not a support extending axially…”. In Fig 6, 61 has an axial dimension. As for support, Examiner interprets 61 is supporting the bus bar and slip ring assembly. With respect to Applicant argument regarding Claim 34 “completely filled”, Examiner will consider in below sections.
Applicant Argument 10: Applicant further submits that new claim 36 is separately patentable over Klein. Claim 36 recites that "the support element has a smaller diameter than the bearing face, and a detent is formed at a transition between the support element and the bearing face." Klein discloses the opposite arrangement. In Klein, the slip rings are carried on an insulating sleeve 59, and the shaft section carrying the slip ring arrangement is expressly taught to be of comparatively great-not reduced-diameter: "that shaft section of the rotor shaft 121 which is a carrier of the slip ring arrangement 50 with the insulating sleeve 59 can have a comparatively great external diameter on account of the thin-walled embodiment of the insulating sleeve 59." See Klein, paragraph [0030]. Klein therefore neither discloses nor suggests a support element-on which the slip ring module is disposed-that has a smaller diameter than the bearing face, nor a detent formed at a transition between such a support element and the bearing face. Accordingly, claim 36 is separately patentable over Klein.
Examiner Response 10: The Applicant has added new claim 36 which will be prosecuted in below sections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 15-16,18,20,24-25,31, 32,36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Klein (US20200044520A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Klein discloses (Figs 1-2, 4-7) a rotor shaft (12) for a rotor (12) of an electric machine (1), wherein the electric machine is a current-energized electric synchronous machine [Abstract discloses slip ring therefore machine is synchronous], the rotor shaft comprising:
a shaft part (12,121) that extends in an axial direction (AA) along a rotation axis (AA) of the rotor, and that comprises:
a rotor body region (121r) for disposal in a rotor body in a central opening (12o) of the rotor body (12r) of the rotor;
a support element (121s) which follows in the axial direction (AA); and
one or more grooves (62g,63g are stepped groves from longitudinal grooves 62,63 Para 0033) that run in the axial direction (AA) from a connecting region (121c) of the shaft part (121) to the support element (121s), wherein the one or more grooves traverse (Examiner interprets as “to lie or extend across” per Merriam Webster) a bearing face (Be,59 face in Fig 2) (Taking Fig 2, Fig 7 and Para 0033 together shows bus bars 54,53 lying in the groove 62,63 and below bearing Be,59 in Fig 2) and ;
a slip ring module (50) having a base element (slip ring module body including 59, 61) having one or more slip rings (51,52), wherein the slip ring module is disposed on the support element (121s) of the shaft part; and
one or more electrically conducting module lines (53,54) which extend from the corresponding one or more slip rings (51,52) within the corresponding one or more grooves (62,63) of the shaft part to the connecting region (121c) of the shaft part; and
the bearing face (Be inner race diameter Db face in Fig 2) for mounting the rotor shaft, which is disposed on the shaft part (121) and/or on the slip ring module, wherein the bearing face in terms of the axial direction (AA) is disposed between (Fig 2, 121b is between 121c and 121s) the connecting region (121c) of the shaft part and the one or more slip rings (51,52) of the slip ring module (50).
PNG
media_image1.png
460
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
433
562
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
532
466
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
300
488
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
204
548
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16, Klein discloses the rotor shaft according to claim 15. Klein further discloses wherein the bearing face (Be, 59) encloses the one or more grooves (62g,63g) and the one or more electrically conducting module lines (53,54) in a radially encircling manner (Fig 2) about the axial direction (AA)(See Examiner Response 8).
Regarding Claim 18, Klein discloses the rotor shaft according to claim 15. Klein further discloses
wherein the one or more electrically conducting module lines (53,54) are in each case disposed in an electrically isolating support (61 is plastic overmolding); the one or more supports, proceeding in each case (overmolding will contact 59) from an end face of the base element (59 face) of the slip ring module, extend in the axial direction (AA) toward the connecting region (121c) of the shaft part (121); and the one or more grooves (62,63) are configured to receive the corresponding one or more supports (62, 63 are covered by overmold 61)(See Examiner Response 9).
Regarding Claim 20, Klein discloses the rotor shaft according to claim 15. Klein further discloses
wherein the shaft part (121) has a detent (De whose curvature changes) for an end face (En) of the base element (61) of the slip ring module (50), which is disposed between the connecting region (121c) and the support element (121s); and the one or more grooves (62g, 63g) begin at the detent (De) and terminate in the connecting region (121c).
Regarding Claim 24, Klein discloses the rotor shaft according to claim 15. Klein further discloses wherein the support element is configured as a pin which extends in a radial direction away from a detent of the shaft part; and/or wherein the base element (59) of the slip ring module (50) has a cavity (Fig 3) which is configured to receive the support element (121s) of the shaft part (121), in particular in such a manner that an interference fit is formed [Para 0030 discloses “The insulating sleeve 59 is pushed directly onto the rotor shaft 121 and is connected fixedly to the rotor shaft 121 so as to rotate with it"] between the base element of the slip ring module and the support element of the shaft part.
Regarding Claim 25, Klein discloses the rotor shaft according to claim 15. Klein further discloses wherein the rotor shaft (12) in the connecting region (121c which is annotated in Fig 2 and Fig 7) of the shaft part comprises a ring (Fig 6 discloses Ri which is ring shape) which runs radially about the shaft part (121) and has one or more contact elements (Co) for connecting the corresponding one or more module lines (53,54)(See Examiner Response 6).
Regarding Claim 31, Klein discloses the rotor shaft according to claim 15. Klein further discloses
wherein the support element (121s) extends in the axial direction (AA) beyond the bearing face (121b) and reaches up to an end face of the slip ring module(50)(Annotated Fig 2 below in combination with Fig 6 discloses 121 at F2 reaching to an end face F1 of slip ring module) .
PNG
media_image6.png
422
558
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 32, Klein discloses the rotor shaft according to claim 15. Klein further discloses
wherein the one or more grooves (62,63) extend from the support element (121s), via a detent (transition from 121s to 121b in Fig 7), via (Fig 2)the bearing face (Be), to the connecting region (121c) , such that the one or more module lines run below the bearing face in a wall of the shaft part (Taking Fig 2, Fig 7 and Para 0033 together shows bus bars 54,53 lying in the groove 62,63 which can be a wall of shaft part 121and below bearing Be in Fig 2)(See Examiner Response 7).
Regarding Claim 36, Klein discloses the rotor shaft according to claim 15. Klein further discloses
wherein the support element (121s) has a smaller diameter (Ds) than the bearing face (Be inner race inside diameter Db face n Fig 2), and a detent (De) is formed at a transition between the support element and the bearing face (Fig 2).
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.
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.
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.
Claims 19, 21,22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein in view of Beck (US20230043493A1 PCT Filed 12.15.20).
Regarding Claim 19, Klein discloses the rotor shaft according to claim 18. Klein does not explicitly disclose wherein one or more sealing elements for sealing the corresponding one or more grooves of the shaft part in a fluid-tight manner are disposed on the end face of the base element of the slip ring module.
Beck discloses (Fig3) wherein one or more sealing elements (42) for sealing the corresponding one or more grooves (18,20) of the shaft part in a fluid-tight manner are disposed on the end face (22) of the base element (12 body) of the slip ring module (12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed rotor shaft of Klein modified by sealing element of Beck in order to in order to keep oil penetrating into the wire guiding channel.
PNG
media_image7.png
358
372
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 21, Klein discloses the rotor shaft according to claim 15. Klein does not explicitly disclose wherein the base element of the slip ring module has at least one sealing face which radially encircles the base element and is disposed between the one or more slip rings and an end face of the base element that faces the connecting region of the shaft part.
Beck discloses (Fig 1) wherein the base element (12 body) of the slip ring module (12) has at least one sealing face (34 sealing face) which radially encircles the base element (Fig 1) and is disposed between the one or more slip rings (24) and an end face (12ef) of the base element that faces the connecting region (26 region) of the shaft part (shaft in receiving space 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed rotor shaft of Klein modified by sealing element of Beck in order to keep oil penetrating into the wire guiding channel.
PNG
media_image8.png
518
830
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 22, Klein in view of Beck discloses the rotor shaft according to claim 21. Klein in view of Beck does not explicitly disclose wherein the rotor shaft has at least one sealing element: which is disposed on the at least one sealing face of the base element of the slip ring module, and which is configured to shield the one or more slip rings in relation to an oil which is disposed on the bearing face of the rotor shaft.
Beck further discloses (Fig 1) wherein the rotor shaft (shaft in receiving space 16) has at least one sealing element (34): which is disposed on the at least one sealing face (34 sealing face) of the base element (Fig 1) of the slip ring module (12), and which is configured to shield the one or more slip rings (24) in relation to an oil which is disposed on the bearing face of the rotor shaft [0010 discloses functioning of seal].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed rotor shaft of Klein modified by sealing element of Beck in order to keep oil penetrating into the wire guiding channel.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein in view of Runck (DE102004040590A1 English translation) and Shirai (US20180233994A1).
Regarding Claim 23, Klein discloses the rotor shaft according to claim 15. Klein does not explicitly disclose wherein the support element of the shaft part has a threaded bore on an end face; and the rotor shaft has a screw which is screwed into the threaded bore of the support element of the shaft part and is configured to fix the slip ring module in the axial direction on the support element of the shaft part, whereby the slip ring module is pressed against a detent of the shaft part for an end face of the base element of the slip ring module by the screw.
Runck discloses (Fig 6) [0028 discloses bolt] wherein the support element (16) of the shaft part (16) has a bore (86 is hole for bolt 83) on an end face (16ef); and the rotor shaft and is configured to fix the slip ring module (50,22,24) in the axial direction (AA) on the support element of the shaft part, whereby the slip ring module is pressed against a detent (16d) of the shaft part for an end face (50ef) of the base element (50) of the slip ring module by the screw but does not explicitly disclose a threaded bore and a screw connection(Although Runck discloses bolt 83 going into hole 86 and bolts usually have threaded connection).
Shirai discloses (Figs 10,13) the rotor shaft has a screw (10) which is screwed into the threaded bore (36) of the support element (33) of the shaft part (53)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed rotor shaft of Klein modified by fastening of slip ring module with shaft using a connection as taught by Runck in order to have a firm and if necessary dis-assemblable connection and a screw type connection as taught by Shirai in order to have desired type of fastener as per design choice .
PNG
media_image9.png
283
558
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
210
350
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
322
416
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein in view of Schroeder (US20130200757A1).
Regarding Claim 26, Klein discloses the rotor shaft according to claim 15. Klein does not explicitly disclose wherein the rotor shaft comprises a sensor module for detecting an angular position of the rotor shaft, which is fastened to an end face of the support element of the shaft part.
Schroeder discloses (Fig 2) wherein the rotor shaft (9, 13) comprises a sensor module (23) for detecting an angular position of the rotor shaft, which is fastened (23 is fastened to 18 part of 27 which is fastened to 9) to an end face (9s face) of the support element (9s) of the shaft part (9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed rotor shaft of Klein modified by sensor module of Schroeder in order to know position of rotor and thereby enable control of rotation.
PNG
media_image12.png
788
702
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein in view of Soper (US3512074A).
Regarding Claim 27, Klein discloses a rotor (12) for an electric machine (1), wherein the rotor comprises: a rotor body (12r); and the rotor shaft (12, 121) according to claim 15, which is enclosed by the rotor body (12r), wherein the one or more module lines (53,54) of the slip ring module (50) of the rotor shaft (12) are connected in an electrically conducting manner. Klein does not explicitly disclose rotor having a plurality of salient poles and a plurality of electrically conducting windings about the corresponding plurality of salient poles and slip ring connected to the plurality of windings;
Soper discloses (Figs 1c, 5) rotor (16) having a plurality of salient poles (26) and a plurality of electrically conducting windings (17,18 or 37,38) about the corresponding plurality of salient poles and slip ring (19) connected to the plurality of windings;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed rotor shaft of Klein modified by rotor with salient poles and multiple rotor windings of Soper in order to have a configuration required for power transmission systems such as hydroturbine alternators.
PNG
media_image13.png
254
230
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
304
420
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 28, Klein in view of Soper discloses an electric machine (Soper is an electric machine) comprising: the rotor (16) according to claim 27.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein in view of Saval (US5325003A).
Regarding Claim 29, Klein discloses the rotor shaft according to claim 15. Klein further discloses wherein the shaft part (121) is integrally configured (121 is a single part) but does not explicitly disclose shaft is metallic.
Saval discloses [Col 5, Line 10] wherein shaft is a metallic component.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed rotor shaft of Klein modified by metallic shaft of Saval in order to have a choice of material of shaft that will have required strength for targeted application.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein in view of Shirai.
Regarding Claim 25, Klein discloses the rotor shaft according to claim 25 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more contact elements are each configured as an electrically conducting fork.
Shirai (Fig4) discloses wherein the one or more contact elements (54) are each configured as an electrically conducting fork.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed rotor shaft of Klein with electrically conducting fork of Shirai in order to have a desired way to connect with the rotor winding.
PNG
media_image15.png
652
486
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Klein.
Regarding Claim 35, Klein discloses the rotor shaft according to claim 15. Klein further discloses
wherein the bearing face (Be) is disposed on the shaft part (121) and defines a bearing seat (Be inner race is seated on overmold assembly 53,54 portion of Fig 6 which is shown in Fig 2 along with 121b)on which an inner race (Be inner race) of a bearing is seated but does not explicitly disclose wherein the bearing seat is interrupted by the one or more grooves.
Klein further discloses bearing seat (Fig 6, 53,54 overmold portion which is assembled on to shaft portion 121b as shown in Fig 2 ) is interrupted by the one or more grooves (62g,63g taking Fig 7, Fig 2 and Fig 6 together).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed rotor shaft of Klein with bearing seat interrupted by grooves in order to communicate from power from slip ring to rotor winding while at the same time rotationally supporting rotating shaft at the required location.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 34 is 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:
Claim 34 recites “The rotor shaft according to claim 18, wherein the one or more supports each have a shape which complements a corresponding one of the one or more grooves, such that the one or more grooves are completely filled by the corresponding one or more supports”. Applicant has argued that Klein does not disclose “grooves are completely filled”. Examiner finds argument persuasive as there is no explicit disclosure in Klein the nature of assembly between overmold assembly Fig 6 and shaft portion 121 as shown in Fig 2. Therefore, it cannot be derived that support shape is completely filling groove 62,63. Therefore claim 34 is allowable.
Conclusion
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 VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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 M 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.
/VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights