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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 25 June 2026 have been considered. However, it appears Hartmann teaches the newly amended subject matter to claims 14 and 24.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 14-19, 23-24, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (“Wei”; US 2022/0216772), in view of Hartmann (DE 10 2020 119 719 A1; English translation attached).
Regarding claim 14: Wei discloses an electric machine (Fig. 1-2), comprising:
a housing (200) comprising a recess (111); and
a rotor (100) mounted in the housing for rotation about a rotational axis (l), one axial end of the rotor (top side, shown best in Fig. 2 and 3) being disposed at the recess;
a closure element (150) removably attached in the recess (paragraph 0108); and
a grounding contact (160) arranged axially between the closure element (150) and the rotor (via 130, paragraph 0103).
Wei does not explicitly disclose the grounding contact is axially removably insertable in the rotor along the rotational axis via the recess when the closure element is removed from the recess.
However, Hartmann discloses the grounding contact (16, 17) is axially removably insertable in the rotor along the rotational axis (for example, as shown in the exploded view in Fig. 3a) via the recess when the closure element (in this case 32 and 33) is removed from the recess (the grounding contact is shown inserted in the recess in Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the grounding contact and closure element of Wei to allow the grounding contact to be removable insertable, as disclosed by Hartmann, in order to allow for easier maintenance of the contact.
Regarding claim 15: Wei discloses the grounding contact (160) comprises a first side (at 130) and a second side (at 150), the first and second sides of the grounding contact being electrically connected together (as shown in Fig. 3), but does not explicitly disclose the first and second sides being separate from each other with respect to a torque.
However, Hartmann discloses the first (16) and second sides (17) being separate from each other with respect to a torque (via 18, page 7 of translation, last full paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the grounding contact of Wei to include the separation of Hartmann in order to allow for full rotation of the rotor.
Regarding claim 16: Wei modified by Hartmann discloses the first and second side, Hartmann further discloses the grounding contact (16, 17) is axially disconnectable between the first side (16) and the second side (17, as they are one each side of 21 in Fig. 2, axially separated, and thus, disconnected).
Regarding claim 17: Wei discloses the closure element (150) is mountable in the recess (111) by a thread (paragraph 0108: “screw connection”).
Regarding claim 18: Wei discloses connecting (bonding, clamping, screw connection) element extending axially between the closure element and the grounding contact (paragraph 0104).
Regarding claim 19: Wei discloses the connecting element is non-rotatably attached to the closure element (paragraph 0104).
Regarding claim 23: Wei discloses the closure element (235) and the connecting element (245), but does not explicitly disclose an elastic element disposed such that the elastic element provides an axial force between the closure element and the connecting element.
However, Hartmann discloses an elastic element (33, Fig. 3) disposed such that the elastic element provides an axial force between the closure element (7) and the connecting element (32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the closure and connecting elements of Wei to include the elastic element of Hartmann in order to ensure there is a secure seal.
Regarding claim 24: Wei discloses a grounding device (150, 160) for an electric machine (120) that includes a housing (200) defining a recess (111), the electric machine further includes a rotor (100) mounted in the housing for rotation about a rotational axis (l), one axial end of the rotor (top side, shown best in Fig. 2 and 3) being at the recess, the grounding device (150, 160) comprising:
a closure element (150) configured to be removably attached in the recess (paragraph 0108); and
a grounding contact (160) configured to be attached axially between the closure element (150) and the rotor (at 130).
Wei does not explicitly disclose the grounding contact is axially removably insertable in the rotor along the rotational axis via the recess when the closure element is removed from the recess.
However, Hartmann discloses the grounding contact (16, 17) is axially removably insertable in the rotor along the rotational axis (for example, as shown in the exploded view in Fig. 3a) via the recess when the closure element (in this case 32 and 33) is removed from the recess (the grounding contact is shown inserted in the recess in Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the grounding contact and closure element of Wei to allow the grounding contact to be removable insertable, as disclosed by Hartmann, in order to allow for easier maintenance of the contact.
Regarding claim 28: Wei modified by Hartmann disclose the grounding contact and the closure element, Hartmann further discloses grounding contact (16, 17) comprises a first side and a second side, the first side being attached to the connecting element (in that connecting element 32,33 is circular and, in theory, contacts and infinite number of sides of the ground element).
Claims 20, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei and Hartmann, further in view of Samie et al. (“Samie”; US 2024/0235336).
Regarding claim 20: Wei discloses the connecting element, but does not explicitly disclose the connecting element comprises an axial bore; the closure element comprises a fluid duct, and a fluid is flowable into the fluid duct in a radial direction and flowable out of the fluid duct in an axial direction toward the axial bore.
However, Samie discloses the connecting element comprises an axial bore (385);
the closure element comprises a fluid duct (353), and
a fluid is flowable into the fluid duct in a radial direction and flowable out of the fluid duct in an axial direction toward the axial bore (as shown by the angle of the duct 353).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the connecting element of Wei to have the bore and duct of Samie in order to allow for cooling while providing a discharge path (paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 25: Wei discloses the electric machine of claim 14, but does not explicitly disclose an electric drive axle.
However, Samie discloses an electric drive axle (paragraph 0033).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electric machine of Wei to include the axle of Samie in order to provide power to the axle.
Regarding claim 26: Wei modified by Samie discloses the electric drive axle, Samie further discloses a motor vehicle, comprising the electric drive axle of claim 25 (paragraph 0033).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei and Hartmann, further in view of Markofsky (DE 10 2020 117 719 A1, English translation attached).
Regarding claim 27: Wei discloses the grounding contact is at a remote axial end of the rotor when the closure element is attached in the recess (in this case, the top of Fig. 1, as “remote” has not been defined in the claim yet), but does not explicitly disclose the remote axial end of the rotor being opposite the one axial end of the rotor (as “remote” is now defined).
However, Markofsky discloses the remote axial end of the rotor being opposite the one axial end of the rotor (grounding contact 50, capacitor disks 49 on 50 are the ground elements, thus 50 is a grounding contact, extends fully into shaft 40, from the left side of Fig. 1, akin to the “one axial end” to the right side, the “remote axial end”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the grounding contact of Wei to extend fulling into the shaft, to the remote axial end, as disclosed by Markofsky, in order to allow for additional grounding.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 and 22 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The prior art of record, alone or in combination does not explicitly teach, suggest, or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan the rotor of claim 21, specifically comprising:
the connecting element extending into the coaxial bore; and
the connecting element comprises at least one radial recess for radially dispensing fluid from the bore, in the context of the other component in the claim.
Claim 22 is allowable due to its dependency on claim 21.
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 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 SEAN GUGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-5343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00am - 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, T.C. Patel can be reached at 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 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.
/SEAN GUGGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights