DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed 8/17/2026 has been entered.
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 (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 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 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hubert et al (US 2022/0329135).
Regarding claim 1, Hubert et al disclose an electrical machine comprising at least one system region which is rotatable about an axis of rotation X with respect to a machine frame 10 and at least one first electrical unit/ inner ring 16 on the rotatable system region/shaft 14, wherein the at least one first electrical unit/ inner ring16 is electrically conductively connected by a line connection (not shown) from the power supply (see Para [0003]) through a plurality of conductive fibers 19 (see Fig. 1, Para [0019]) to at least one second electrical unit/ outer ring 17 carried outside the rotatable system region/shaft 14 with respect to the machine frame10, wherein the line connection comprises a first line path, wherein the first line path comprises at least one sealing arrangement/ground brush/conductive material 18 having a support 18a and a plurality of conductive fibers 19 (see Fig.1, Para [0019]-[0020]) which tightly closes the rotatable system region 14 with respect to a non-rotating system region 12, 12a carried with respect to the machine frame10 (see Figs. 1-2, Para [0014]-[0028]). With respect the first line path, it is believed to be inherent to provide electric lines/path to sealing arrangement 18, 18a, 19 which tightly closes the rotatable system region with respect to the non-rotating system region 12 carried with respect to the machine frame 10 (see Figs. 1-2, Para [0019]-[0020]).
Further, Hubert et al disclose the line connection comprises a second line path (not shown), wherein the second line path comprises at least one bearing unit 15 which supports the rotating system region 14 rotatably about the axis of rotation X with respect to a non-rotating system region 12 carried with respect to the machine frame 10 (see Figs. 1-2, Para [0021], [0024] & [0029]).
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.
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubert et al (US 2022/0329135).
Regarding claim 23, although Hubert et al fails to disclose or fairly suggest the non-rotating system region is supported on the machine frame by means of a plurality of elastic, electrically insulating suspension elements, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide such a notoriously old and well known elastic, electrically insulating suspension elements to the non-rotating system of the electric motor in order to decrease the vibration and noise while in use.
Regarding claim 24, although Hubert et al fails to disclose or fairly suggest the at least one first electrical unit comprises a consumer of electrical energy- preferably including a sensor and/or a transmitter unit, and/or in that the at least one second electrical unit(80) comprises a source of electrical energy, preferably including a battery and/or a generator, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide such a notoriously old and well sensor with transmitter system and battery with generator to the electrical units in order to efficiently operate the electric motor for the certain purpose.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubert et al (US 2022/0329135) in view of Meixner (CN 215482129, see the English Translation of the reference cited in PTO-892).
Regarding claim 25, Hubert et al fails to disclose or fairly suggest the rotatable system region comprises a ground processing drum containing an unbalance arrangement with at least one unbalance mass rotatable about an unbalance axis of rotation is tightly sealed by the at least one sealing arrangement.
However, Meixner discloses a ground processing machine comprising a drum 22 having an unbalance arrangement with at least one unbalance mass 38 rotatable about unbalance axis D of rotation (see Fig.2, under the subtitle, “Specific Implementation examples” starting “ In FIG.2….” and “ In particular, in order to generate …. With at least one non-balance mass unit.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize Hubert et al’s electric motor system for a drum roller as taught by Meixner in order to efficiently utilize for the compaction or rolling capacity on the ground roadway construction.
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Application Publication (JP 3881438, herein referenced as JP’438) in view of Hubert et al (US 2022/0329135).
Regarding claim 22, JP’438 discloses a compacting machine comprising at least one system region which is rotatable about an axis of rotation with respect to a machine frame and at least one first electrical unit on the rotatable system region 12, wherein the at least one first electrical unit is electrically conductively connected by a line connection/electric wire 11 from the power supply 10 to at least one second electrical unit carried outside the rotatable system region 12 with respect to the machine frame, wherein the line connection comprises a first line path by a line connection/wire 11 (see Figs. 1-5, Para [0017]-[0019]).
However, JP’438 fails to specifically disclose the electric motor having the first line path comprises at least one sealing arrangement which tightly closes the rotatable system region 14 with respect to a non-rotating system region 12, 12a carried with respect to the machine frame.
Hubert et al discloses an electrical machine comprising at least one system region which is rotatable about an axis of rotation X with respect to a machine frame 10 and at least one first electrical unit/ inner ring 16 on the rotatable system region/shaft 14, wherein the at least one first electrical unit/ inner ring16 is electrically conductively connected by a line connection (not shown) from the power supply (see Para [0003]) through a plurality of conductive fibers 19 (see Fig. 1, Para [0019]) to at least one second electrical unit/ outer ring 17 carried outside the rotatable system region/shaft 14 with respect to the machine frame10, wherein the line connection comprises a first line path, wherein the first line path comprises at least one sealing arrangement/ground brush/conductive material 18 having a support 18a and a plurality of conductive fibers 19 (see Fig.1, Para [0019]-[0020]) which tightly closes the rotatable system region 14 with respect to a non-rotating system region 12, 12a carried with respect to the machine frame10 (see Figs. 1-2, Para [0014]-[0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to replace electric motor system for a compaction machine with the motor as taught by Hubert et al in order to efficiently utilize the motor for the compaction or rolling capacity on the ground roadway construction.
With respect the first line path, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide electric lines/path to the various parts of the sealing arrangement in order to properly operate the motor system.
Further, JP’438 fails to specifically disclose a second line path wherein the second line path having a bearing unit supporting the rotating system region rotatably about the axis with respect to a non-rotating system with respect to the machine frame.
Hubert et al disclose the line connection comprises a second line path (not shown), wherein the second line path comprises at least one bearing unit 15 which supports the rotating system region 14 rotatably about the axis of rotation X with respect to a non-rotating system region 12 carried with respect to the machine frame 10 (see Figs. 1-2, Para [0021], [0024] & [0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to replace JP’438’s electric motor system for a compaction machine with the motor details as taught by Hubert et al in order to efficiently utilize the motor for the compaction or rolling capacity on the ground roadway construction.
Regarding claim 23, although JP’438 as modified by Hubert et al fails to disclose or fairly suggest the non-rotating system region is supported on the machine frame by means of a plurality of elastic, electrically insulating suspension elements, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide such a notoriously old and well known elastic, electrically insulating suspension elements to the non-rotating system of the electric motor in order to decrease the vibration and noise while in use.
Regarding claim 24, although JP’438 as modified by Hubert et al fails to disclose or fairly suggest the at least one first electrical unit comprises a consumer of electrical energy- preferably including a sensor and/or a transmitter unit, and/or in that the at least one second electrical unit(80) comprises a source of electrical energy, preferably including a battery and/or a generator, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide such a notoriously old and well sensor with transmitter system and battery with generator to the electrical units in order to efficiently operate the electric motor for the certain purpose.
Claims 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Application Publication (JP 3881438, herein referenced as JP’438) in view of Hubert et al (US 2022/0329135), further in view of Meixner (CN 215482129, see the English Translation of the reference cited in PTO-892).
Regarding claim 25, JP’438 as modified by Hubert et al fails to disclose or fairly suggest the rotatable system region comprises a ground processing drum.
However, Meixner discloses a ground processing machine comprising a drum 22 having an unbalance arrangement with at least one unbalance mass 38 rotatable about unbalance axis D of rotation (see Fig.2, under the subtitle, “Specific Implementation examples” starting “ In FIG.2….” and “ In particular, in order to generate …. With at least one non-balance mass unit.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize JP’438’s electric motor system for a drum roller as taught by Meixner in order to efficiently utilize for the compaction or rolling capacity on the ground roadway construction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s argument that Hurbert does not disclose or suggest that a round connection not comprising ground brush 18 or not comprising inner ring 16, could or should be provided as a separate independent path. Moreover, Hubert does not disclose an electrical unit being supplied with electric energy y means of either path at all and Hubert does not mention any electrical unit, such as a sensor, transmitter, battery, or generator, provided at the rotating side…For at least these reasons, Hurbert does not disclose or suggest the combination recited in claim 22, where or not Hubert is considered to disclose one line path or two. However, it is not persuasive because it is more limited than the claim scope.
Insofar as Hubert discloses the “electrical” machine10 having a “conductive” layer 24 and “conductive” brush 18, it teaches the electrical unit having such elements in which at least one first electrical unit/ inner ring16 is electrically conductively connected by a line connection (not shown) from the power supply (see Para [0003]) through a plurality of conductive fibers 19 (see Fig. 1, Para [0019]) to at least one second electrical unit/ outer ring 17 carried outside the rotatable system region/shaft 14 with respect to the machine frame10, wherein the line connection comprises a first line path, wherein the first line path comprises at least one sealing arrangement/ground brush/conductive material 18 having a support 18a and a plurality of conductive fibers 19 (see Fig.1, Para [0019]-[0020]) as mentioned in the rejection for new claim 22.
With respect to the argument that as to the combination of Hubert and JP’438, although JP’438 discloses an electrical unit on the rotating part of a compacting machine, the Office action does not articulate any reason to combine JP’438’s single slip ring line connection with both Hubert’s line path teaching together in the specific combination recited in claim 22. Hubert’s stated rationale for its grounding brush and conductive bearing arrangement is to provide a parallel electrical path that protects a bearing from damage due to electrical discharge having no bearing to protect from such discharge and not corresponding need for a second, parallel path. However, it is not persuasive because it is more limited than the claim scope.
Further, JP’438 discloses a compacting machine for pavement composed of iron ring rollers, power supply means for appropriately supplying electric energy, and power supply means fixed to the inner peripheral surface of the rotating iron ring met compaction machine has a steel wheel heating insulation means the electrical energy supplied to and converted into thermal energy to heat the outer peripheral surface of the iron ring insulation, iron wheel heating insulation device obtained by adding the iron wheels heat insulation. Insofar as Hurbert’s electrical machine is used for rollers (see Para [0015]), Hurbert’s rolling machine with a rotating shaft assembly could have been incorporated into the compacting roller of JP’438 in order to improve the rolling function of the compacting machine.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-10 and 12-21 are allowed.
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 Jong-Suk (James) Lee whose telephone number is (571) 272-7044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 6AM- 4PM. 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, Allana Bidder can be reached on 571-272-5560. 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: httos://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https:/Avww.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.
/JONG-SUK (JAMES) LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
