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
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 6-8, 10, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as anticipated by Floss, of claims 2-5 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Floss in view of Maytone, and of claims 11-15 and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Floss in view of Donley have been fully considered and are persuasive as applied to the claims as amended. Floss does not explicitly teach coolant directly contacting an interior side of the first slip ring and an interior side of the second slip ring, because the coolant-conducting region(17) is separated from the slip rings by a wall(19) of the recess(8)(¶[0017]). Maytone does not cure this deficiency because Maytone immerses the brushes and the slip rings in the coolant within a chamber such that the coolant contacts each slip ring at the brush-ring interface at the exterior of the ring, the interior of each ring being seated on insulating resin on the shaft(casing 9 defining chamber 10; slip rings 5 seated on epoxy insulating resin 4; Maytone claim 1; FIGS. 1-2). Donley likewise does not cure this deficiency as previously applied. Therefore, the rejections of record have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Krieger (US 4137474), as set forth above. The new grounds of rejection were necessitated by Applicant's amendment of claims 1, 2, 8, 16, and 18.
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 8-15 and 17 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.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites "an interior side of the first slip ring," "an interior side of the second slip ring," "an exterior side of the first slip ring," and "an exterior side of the second slip ring." There is insufficient antecedent basis for "the first slip ring" and "the second slip ring" in the claim. The amendment filed 06/09/2026 deleted the recitation "to a first slip ring and a second slip ring" from the flowing step of claim 8, and no first slip ring or second slip ring is otherwise positively introduced; the preamble recites only "slip rings" generally. It is therefore unclear what structure "the first slip ring" and "the second slip ring" refer to. This rejection may be overcome by amending claim 8 to positively introduce "a first slip ring" and "a second slip ring" prior to the recitations noted above.
Claims 9-15 are rejected due to their dependency on rejected claim 8.
Regarding claim 17, claim 16, as amended, recites "one or more coolant passages in fluidic communication with the fluid flow distribution device." Claim 17 recites "further comprising one or more coolant passages within the annular body." It is unclear whether the "one or more coolant passages" of claim 17 are the same one or more coolant passages recited in claim 16 or are additional coolant passages, rendering the scope of claim 17 indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-10, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Floss (US 20210036582 A1) in view of Krieger (US 4137474).
Regarding claim 1, Floss teaches an electric machine(externally-excited synchronous machine 1; ¶[0025]; FIG. 1), comprising: a rotor including a first slip ring and a second slip ring, the rotor including a shaft(rotor 2 including two axially spaced slip rings 7 and rotor shaft 4; ¶[0026], ¶[0033]; FIGS. 1-2); one or more coolant passages arranged to supply coolant to cool the first slip ring and the second slip ring(coolant-conducting region 17 supplied with coolant 14 via lance cooling 5 to dissipate heat from slip rings 7; ¶[0028], ¶[0032]); a first brush in contact with an exterior side of the first slip ring and a second brush in contact with an exterior side of the second slip ring(carbon brush contact elements 10 in sliding contact with the outer lateral surface 9 of each slip ring 7; ¶[0028], ¶[0033]); and a stator(stator 3; ¶[0026]).
Floss does not explicitly teach where the one or more coolant passages are arranged such that coolant flowing through the one or more coolant passages directly contacts an interior side of the first slip ring and an interior side of the second slip ring. Floss is silent because its coolant-conducting region(17) is separated from the inner surface(12) of each slip ring by a wall(19) of the recess(8)(¶[0017]).
However, Krieger teaches where one or more coolant passages are arranged such that coolant flowing through the one or more coolant passages directly contacts an interior side of a first slip ring and an interior side of a second slip ring(ring channels 6 defined between the radially inner surface of ring flange 5 and slip-ring shaft 1 conduct coolant gas in direct contact with the inner surface of slip ring 2; col. 2, lines 16-26; coolant gas flow path through ring channels 6; col. 2, lines 40-48; negative-pole slip ring constructed in a similar manner; col. 2, lines 50-56; FIGS. 1-2), while the slip-ring brushes engage the radially outer surface(brush holders 11 and receptacles 12; col. 2, lines 30-36).
Krieger is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of slip ring cooling for electrical machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Floss such that the one or more coolant passages are arranged such that coolant flowing through the one or more coolant passages directly contacts an interior side of the first slip ring and an interior side of the second slip ring, as taught by Krieger. One would be motivated to do this in order to optimally cool the slip ring and its surface while markedly reducing the flow resistance encountered by the coolant(Krieger col. 1, lines 22-26; col. 2, lines 57-63), while avoiding the complexity of conducting coolant through channels within the slip ring body that Floss recognizes(¶[0005]), the modification requiring no more than extending the coolant-conducting region that Floss already guides axially through the slip rings(¶[0018]) to the inner surface of each slip ring, using a coolant that Floss teaches may be gaseous(¶[0032]). The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding claim 6/1, Floss in view of Krieger teaches the electric machine of claim 1.
Floss further teaches where the first slip ring and the second slip ring are included in a slip ring module(slip rings 7 accommodated in recesses 8 of slip ring carrier 6; ¶[0025], ¶[0033]; FIGS. 1-2).
Regarding claim 7/6, Floss in view of Krieger teaches the electric machine of claim 6.
Floss further teaches where the slip ring module is fitted to the shaft(slip ring carrier 6 formed on the outer casing of rotor shaft 4 at axial end 13; ¶[0025], ¶[0027]).
Regarding claim 8, Floss teaches a method for cooling slip rings of an electric machine(slip rings 7 of externally-excited synchronous machine 1; ¶[0025]), comprising: inserting a flow distribution device into a rotor shaft of the electric machine(cylindrical lance cooling 5 arranged inside hollow rotor shaft 4; ¶[0026]); flowing a coolant to the flow distribution device(coolant 14 supplied via lance cooling 5; ¶[0032]); flowing coolant from the flow distribution device to one or more coolant passages(coolant 14 let through an opening in lance cooling 5 into coolant-conducting region 17; ¶[0032]); and where a first brush contacts an exterior side of the first slip ring and a second brush contacts an exterior side of the second slip ring(carbon brush contact elements 10 in sliding contact with the outer lateral surface 9 of each slip ring 7; ¶[0028], ¶[0033]).
Floss does not explicitly teach where the one or more coolant passages flow the coolant such that the coolant directly contacts an interior side of the first slip ring and an interior side of the second slip ring. Floss is silent because its coolant-conducting region(17) is separated from the inner surface(12) of each slip ring by a wall(19) of the recess(8)(¶[0017]).
However, Krieger teaches where one or more coolant passages are arranged such that coolant flowing through the one or more coolant passages directly contacts an interior side of a first slip ring and an interior side of a second slip ring(ring channels 6 defined between the radially inner surface of ring flange 5 and slip-ring shaft 1 conduct coolant gas in direct contact with the inner surface of slip ring 2; col. 2, lines 16-26; coolant gas flow path through ring channels 6; col. 2, lines 40-48; negative-pole slip ring constructed in a similar manner; col. 2, lines 50-56; FIGS. 1-2), while the slip-ring brushes engage the radially outer surface(brush holders 11 and receptacles 12; col. 2, lines 30-36).
Krieger is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of slip ring cooling for electrical machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Floss such that the one or more coolant passages flow the coolant such that the coolant directly contacts an interior side of the first slip ring and an interior side of the second slip ring, as taught by Krieger. One would be motivated to do this in order to optimally cool the slip ring and its surface while markedly reducing the flow resistance encountered by the coolant(Krieger col. 1, lines 22-26; col. 2, lines 57-63), while avoiding the complexity of conducting coolant through channels within the slip ring body that Floss recognizes(¶[0005]), the modification requiring no more than extending the coolant-conducting region that Floss already guides axially through the slip rings(¶[0018]) to the inner surface of each slip ring, using a coolant that Floss teaches may be gaseous(¶[0032]). The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding claim 9/8, Floss in view of Krieger teaches the method of claim 8.
Krieger further teaches where the coolant flows in direct contact with the first slip ring and the second slip ring(coolant gas flows through ring channels 6, incised notches 8, and grooves 7 in direct contact with slip ring 2; col. 2, lines 19-29; negative-pole slip ring constructed in a similar manner; col. 2, lines 50-56).
Regarding claim 10/8, Floss in view of Krieger teaches the method of claim 8.
Floss further teaches installing a slip ring module to the rotor shaft, where the slip ring module includes the first slip ring and the second slip ring(slip ring carrier 6 formed at axial end 13 of rotor shaft 4 and accommodating both slip rings 7 in recesses 8; ¶[0025], ¶[0027], ¶[0033]).
Regarding claim 16, Floss teaches a slip ring module(slip ring carrier 6 carrying slip rings 7; ¶[0025], ¶[0027]), comprising: an annular body(slip ring carrier 6 formed on the outer casing at axial end 13 of rotor shaft 4; ¶[0027]); a first slip ring and a second slip ring fixed to the annular body(slip rings 7 accommodated in axially spaced-apart recesses 8 of slip ring carrier 6; ¶[0027], ¶[0033]; FIGS. 1-2); a fluid flow distribution device inserted into the annular body(cylindrical lance cooling 5 extending into the region of axial end 13 encircled by slip ring carrier 6; ¶[0026], ¶[0032]); one or more coolant passages in fluidic communication with the fluid flow distribution device(coolant-conducting region 17 receiving coolant 14 from lance cooling 5; ¶[0032]); and a first brush in contact with an exterior side of the first slip ring and a second brush in contact with an exterior side of the second slip ring(carbon brush contact elements 10 in sliding contact with the outer lateral surface 9 of each slip ring 7; ¶[0028], ¶[0033]).
Floss does not explicitly teach where the one or more coolant passages are arranged such that coolant flowing through the one or more coolant passages directly contacts an interior side of the first slip ring and an interior side of the second slip ring. Floss is silent because its coolant-conducting region(17) is separated from the inner surface(12) of each slip ring by a wall(19) of the recess(8)(¶[0017]).
However, Krieger teaches where one or more coolant passages are arranged such that coolant flowing through the one or more coolant passages directly contacts an interior side of a first slip ring and an interior side of a second slip ring(ring channels 6 defined between the radially inner surface of ring flange 5 and slip-ring shaft 1 conduct coolant gas in direct contact with the inner surface of slip ring 2; col. 2, lines 16-26; coolant gas flow path through ring channels 6; col. 2, lines 40-48; negative-pole slip ring constructed in a similar manner; col. 2, lines 50-56; FIGS. 1-2), while the slip-ring brushes engage the radially outer surface(brush holders 11 and receptacles 12; col. 2, lines 30-36).
Krieger is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of slip ring cooling for electrical machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Floss such that the one or more coolant passages are arranged such that coolant flowing through the one or more coolant passages directly contacts an interior side of the first slip ring and an interior side of the second slip ring, as taught by Krieger. One would be motivated to do this in order to optimally cool the slip ring and its surface while markedly reducing the flow resistance encountered by the coolant(Krieger col. 1, lines 22-26; col. 2, lines 57-63), while avoiding the complexity of conducting coolant through channels within the slip ring body that Floss recognizes(¶[0005]), the modification requiring no more than extending the coolant-conducting region that Floss already guides axially through the slip rings(¶[0018]) to the inner surface of each slip ring, using a coolant that Floss teaches may be gaseous(¶[0032]). The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding claim 17/16, Floss in view of Krieger teaches the slip ring module of claim 16.
Floss further teaches one or more coolant passages within the annular body(coolant-conducting region 17 guided axially through the slip rings at axial end 13 within slip ring carrier 6; ¶[0018], ¶[0032]).
Claim(s) 2-5, 11-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Floss (US 20210036582 A1) in view of Krieger (US 4137474), further in view of Donley (US 3560004).
Regarding claim 2/1, Floss in view of Krieger teaches the electric machine of claim 1.
Floss further teaches a cylindrical plug in fluidic communication with the one or more coolant passages(cylindrical lance cooling 5 through which coolant 14 is let into coolant-conducting region 17; ¶[0026], ¶[0032]).
Floss does not explicitly teach where multiple holes in a cylindrical plug are in fluidic communication with the one or more coolant passages. Floss is silent because it discloses only a single opening in the lance cooling(5)(¶[0032]).
However, Donley teaches where multiple holes in a coolant flow structure are in fluidic communication with one or more coolant passages(plural radially directed openings 14 interconnecting central passage 8 with the external coolant flow area; col. 2, lines 39-50; plural radial passageways 54 and slanted radial paths 55 communicating with hollow annulus 53; col. 4, lines 60-67; FIGS. 1, 4-5).
Donley is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because both concern circulating coolant through passages of a rotatable shaft assembly to remove heat. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Floss in view of Krieger such that multiple holes in the cylindrical plug are in fluidic communication with the one or more coolant passages, as taught by Donley. One would be motivated to do this in order to select the quantity and rate of coolant throughput as desired by varying the size and number of the holes(Donley col. 2, lines 46-50). The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding claim 3/2, Floss in view of Krieger, further in view of Donley teaches the electric machine of claim 2.
Floss further teaches further comprising a fluid flow distribution device inserted into the shaft(lance cooling 5 arranged inside rotor shaft 4; ¶[0026]).
Regarding claim 4/3, Floss in view of Krieger, further in view of Donley teaches the electric machine of claim 3.
Floss further teaches where the fluid flow distribution device includes the one or more coolant passages(coolant 14 conducted through the interior of lance cooling 5 into coolant-conducting region 17; ¶[0032]).
Regarding claim 5/3, Floss in view of Krieger, further in view of Donley teaches the electric machine of claim 3.
Floss further teaches where the shaft includes the one or more coolant passages(coolant-conducting region 17 located within rotor shaft 4; ¶[0017], ¶[0032]).
Regarding claim 11/8, Floss in view of Krieger teaches the method of claim 8.
Floss does not explicitly teach where the flow distribution device includes a first longitudinal bore hole and a second longitudinal bore hole. Floss is silent as to the internal flow structure of the lance cooling(5)(¶[0026], ¶[0032]).
However, Donley teaches where a flow distribution structure includes a first longitudinal bore hole and a second longitudinal bore hole(central longitudinal bore 47 with reduced bore section 47a; col. 4, lines 47-53; hollow annulus 53 defined longitudinally within bore section 47a; col. 4, lines 60-63; FIGS. 4-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Floss in view of Krieger such that the flow distribution device includes a first longitudinal bore hole and a second longitudinal bore hole, as taught by Donley. One would be motivated to do this in order to provide a continuous coolant passage with consecutive segments of travel that extends the effective heat-transfer length along the shaft(Donley col. 1, lines 44-50).
Regarding claim 12/11, Floss in view of Krieger, further in view of Donley teaches the method of claim 11.
Donley further teaches where the flow distribution device includes a first plurality of through holes extending into the first longitudinal bore hole(four radial passageways 54 opening into bore section 47a; col. 4, lines 63-65; FIGS. 4-5), and where the flow distribution device includes a second plurality of through holes extending into the second longitudinal bore hole(four slanted radial paths 55 communicating with hollow annulus 53; col. 4, lines 65-67; col. 5, lines 16-33; FIGS. 4-5).
Regarding claim 13/8, Floss in view of Krieger teaches the method of claim 8.
Floss does not explicitly teach where flowing coolant past or through the flow distribution device includes pumping the coolant. Floss is silent as to the means by which the coolant(14) is impelled through the lance cooling(5)(¶[0032]).
However, Donley teaches where flowing coolant past or through a flow distribution structure includes pumping the coolant(self-contained centrifugal pumping action impelling the heat-transfer fluid through the continuous passage; col. 4, lines 10-26; the same centrifugal pumping action in the embodiment of FIGS. 4-5; col. 5, lines 16-33; alternatively, a pump outside of the system as a pressure source; col. 3, lines 58-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Floss in view of Krieger such that flowing coolant past or through the flow distribution device includes pumping the coolant, as taught by Donley. One would be motivated to do this in order to impart positive coolant flow through the passages without dependence on outside pressure(Donley col. 4, lines 1-8), thereby improving coolant circulation and cooling efficiency.
Regarding claim 14/8, Floss in view of Krieger teaches the method of claim 8.
Floss does not explicitly teach further comprising adjusting a flow rate of the coolant in response to a rotational speed of the electric machine. Floss is silent as to control of the coolant flow rate(¶[0032]).
However, Donley teaches adjusting a flow rate of the coolant in response to a rotational speed(the pumping action is self-compensating such that at higher speeds of shaft rotation the pumping action, and thus the coolant flow, is correspondingly greater; col. 4, lines 33-37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Floss in view of Krieger to adjust a flow rate of the coolant in response to a rotational speed of the electric machine, as taught by Donley. One would be motivated to do this in order to increase coolant flow during higher speed operation, when greater amounts of heat are generated(Donley col. 4, lines 33-37).
Regarding claim 15/14, Floss in view of Krieger, further in view of Donley teaches the method of claim 14.
Floss further teaches further comprising flowing the coolant through the rotor shaft(coolant-conducting region 17 located within rotor shaft 4; ¶[0017], ¶[0032]).
Regarding claim 18/16, Floss in view of Krieger teaches the slip ring module of claim 16.
Floss does not explicitly teach where the fluid flow distribution device includes multiple holes that are in fluidic communication with the one or more coolant passages. Floss is silent because it discloses only a single opening in the lance cooling(5)(¶[0032]).
However, Donley teaches a flow structure including multiple holes in fluidic communication with one or more coolant passages(plural radially directed openings 14 interconnecting central passage 8 with the external coolant flow area; col. 2, lines 39-50; plural radial passageways 54 and slanted radial paths 55 communicating with hollow annulus 53; col. 4, lines 60-67; FIGS. 1, 4-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Floss in view of Krieger such that the fluid flow distribution device includes multiple holes that are in fluidic communication with the one or more coolant passages, as taught by Donley. One would be motivated to do this in order to select the quantity and rate of coolant throughput as desired by varying the size and number of the holes(Donley col. 2, lines 46-50).
Regarding claim 19/16, Floss in view of Krieger teaches the slip ring module of claim 16.
Floss does not explicitly teach further comprising a first bore hole and a second bore hole, the first bore hole and the second bore hole oriented in a longitudinal direction of the fluid flow distribution device. Floss is silent as to the internal flow structure of the lance cooling(5)(¶[0026], ¶[0032]).
However, Donley teaches a first bore hole and a second bore hole oriented in a longitudinal direction of a flow distribution structure(central longitudinal bore 47 with reduced bore section 47a; col. 4, lines 47-53; hollow annulus 53 extending longitudinally within bore section 47a; col. 4, lines 60-63; FIGS. 4-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Floss in view of Krieger to include a first bore hole and a second bore hole oriented in a longitudinal direction of the fluid flow distribution device, as taught by Donley. One would be motivated to do this in order to provide a continuous coolant passage with consecutive segments of travel that extends the effective heat-transfer length(Donley col. 1, lines 44-50).
Regarding claim 20/19, Floss in view of Krieger, further in view of Donley teaches the slip ring module of claim 19.
Donley further teaches further comprising a plurality of through holes included in the fluid flow distribution device(four radial passageways 54 and four slanted radial paths 55; col. 4, lines 63-67; FIGS. 4-5).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 MOHAMMED QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)-272-8310. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Tulsidas Patel can be reached on 571-272-2098. 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://pairdirect.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).
/MOHAMMED AHMED QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights