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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the retaining element of the machine of claim 1 and the jacket surface of the shaft of claim 17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-20 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.
In claims 1, 10, 13 and 14 the term “in particular” is used. The term is unclear since it is unclear if the limitations after in particular are required for the claim. Claims 2-9, 1-12 and 15-20 are rejected since they depend on claim 1 and/or claims 10, 13 and 14.
In claim 1 “the contact element being connected to the guide unit and/or the retaining element of the machine” is unclear.
The specification does not disclose what the retaining element is or how it is connected to the contact element or show the retaining element in the figures. It is unclear what structure is being claimed. Claims 2-20 are rejected since they depend on claim 1.
In claim 9 “the contact element being connected to the guide unit and/or the retaining element of the machine” is unclear.
The specification does not disclose what the retaining element is or how it is connected to the contact element or show the retaining element in the figures. It is unclear what structure is being claimed. Claim 19 is rejected since it depend on claim 9.
In claim 17 “the contact element contacts a jacket surface of the shaft” is unclear.
The specification makes no mention of a jacket surface of the shaft and the figures do not show any jacket surface. In order to further prosecution examiner will interpret the jacket surface as a surface of the shaft.
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 1-7, 9, 11-14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dopf et al. (US20110227447, “Dopf”).
Re claim 1, Dopf discloses a discharge device for discharging electric currents from a rotor part of a machine having a shaft 4 (figs 1 & 4-5, [0020], [0045] & 0072], brush 1 discharges rotor between plus & minus from power source through commutator 4; fig 1 for prior art but apparent invention of figs 4-6 employed in same manner; inherent electric motor of Dopf has rotor), the discharge device comprising a displaceable contact element 1 received at least partially in a guide unit 6, 51 (figs 4-5, [0072]) and serving to form an electrically conductive sliding contact between a sliding contact surface of the contact element 1 provided for forming the sliding contact and a shaft contact surface of the shaft 4 (fig 4), the contact element 1 being connected to the guide unit and/or a retaining element of the machine in an electrically conductive manner (figs 1 & 4-5, [0045], 1 is electrically connected to power source through 3; where retaining element is element connecting 3 to power source) and the contact element 1 being pre-loaded towards the shaft contact surface by a spring element 2 (figs 1 & 6, [0045]),
wherein the contact element 1 is wetted at least partially, in particular at least in the area of its sliding contact surface (fig 4, [0072]), using an oily fluid (fig 4, [0072]), at least one duct 48, 58 being provided at least in sections of the guide unit 6, 51 and/or of the contact element 1 for the oily fluid (figs 4-6, [0072] & [0077]), the duct 48, 58 being formed by the guide unit 6, 51 and the contact element 1 (figs 4-6).
Re claim 2, Dopf discloses claim 1 as discussed above and further discloses the duct 48, 58 extends at least along the contact element 1 (figs 4-6).
Re claim 3, Dopf discloses claim 1 as discussed above and further discloses the duct 48, 58 is formed by a longitudinal recess in a guide wall of the guide unit 6, 51 (figs 4-5) and/or a longitudinal recess in an outer wall of the contact element 1 (fig 6).
Re claim 4, Dopf discloses claim 3 as discussed above. Griesbach further discloses the outer wall of the contact element 1 abuts against the guide wall of the guide unit 6, 51 (figs 4-5, as implied by figures).
Re claim 5, Dopf discloses claim 3 as discussed above and further discloses at least sections of the longitudinal recess have a semicircular cross section (figs 5-6).
Re claim 6, Dopf discloses claim 1 as discussed above and further discloses the duct 48, 58 for the oily fluid opens into the space between the shaft and the guide unit (figs 4-6).
Re claim 7, Dopf discloses claim 1 as discussed above and further discloses a passage is formed in the guide unit 6, 51 (figs 4-5), a volumetric flow of oily fluid through the duct 48 being able to be limited by the passage (figs 4-5).
Re claim 9, Dopf discloses claim 1 as discussed above and further discloses the contact element 1 is connected to the guide unit or a retaining element of the machine by a stranded wire 3 in an electrically conductive manner (figs 1 & 4-5, [0045], 1 is electrically connected to power source through 3; where retaining element is element connecting 3 to power source).
Re claim 11, Dopf discloses claim 1 as discussed above and further discloses the contact element 1 is a pin-or bolt-shaped brush (figs 5-6).
Re claim 12, Dopf discloses claim 1 as discussed above and further discloses the spring element 2 is a helical compression spring (fig 6, [0077]).
Re claim 13, Dopf discloses claim 1 as discussed above and further discloses a machine, in particular an electric drive motor or transmission having a rotor part having a shaft 4 and a discharge device according to claim 1 (figs 4-5, [0002]), the contact element 1 of the discharge device contacting the shaft 4 with its sliding contact surface in order to form a sliding contact (fig 4, [0072]).
Re claim 14, Dopf discloses claim 13 as discussed above and further discloses oily fluid, in particular motor or transmission oil, is provided at least in a space between the shaft and the guide unit, the space being bridged by the contact element (fig 4).
Re claim 17, Dopf discloses claim 13 as discussed above and further discloses the contact element 1 contacts a jacket surface of the shaft (fig 4, discloses 1 contacts commutator where the commutator inherently forms a jacket on shaft).
Re claim 18, Dopf discloses claim 5 as discussed above and further discloses the semicircular cross section has a groove (figs 4-6, since a semicircular cross-section inherently forms a groove in the guide element or the contact element).
.
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.
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 1-8 11-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griesbach (WO2023094195, “Griesbach”, using machine translation) in view of Hildebrandt (US5361012, “Hildebrandt”) and Dopf.
Re claim 1, Griesbach discloses a discharge device for discharging electric currents from a rotor part of a machine 2 having a shaft 7 (figs 1-2,[0035-0036]), the discharge device comprising a displaceable contact element 16 received at least partially in a guide unit 17 (fig 2, [0038]) and serving to form an electrically conductive sliding contact between a sliding contact surface of the contact element 16 provided for forming the sliding contact and a shaft contact surface 20 of the shaft 7 (fig 2, [0038-0039]), the contact element 16 being connected to the guide unit 7 and/or a retaining element 13 of the machine in an electrically conductive manner (fig 2, [0037]) and the contact element 16 being pre-loaded towards the shaft contact surface 20 by a spring element 19 (fig 2, [0038]),
wherein the contact element 16 is wetted at least partially, in particular at least in the area of its sliding contact surface (fig 2, 16 at least partially wetted by oil flow shown in fig 2), using an oily fluid (fig 2, [0040]).
Griesbach discloses claim 1 except for at least one duct being provided at least in sections of the guide unit and/or of the contact element for the oily fluid, the duct being formed by the guide unit and the contact element.
Hildebrandt discloses providing high dielectric liquids to run down the side of the contact element 86 and between the sliding contact surface of the contact element and the shaft 84 in order to provide cooling for the contact element and shaft (figs 6-7, col 1, lns 13-24 & col 5, lns 50-54).
Dopf discloses at least one duct 48, 58 being provided at least in sections of the guide unit 6, 51 and/or of the contact element for the oily fluid 37 (fig 4, [0072]), the duct 48, 58 being formed by the guide unit 6, 51 and the contact element 1 (figs 4-6, [0072] & [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the guide element and/or the contact element of Griesbach with at least one duct being provided at least in sections of the guide unit and/or of the contact element for the oily fluid, the duct being formed by the guide unit and the contact element, as disclosed by Dopf, in order to provide oil along the side of the contact element and shaft to cool the contact element and shaft, as taught by Hildebrandt. Employing the duct of Dopf with Griesbach will provide easy flow of oil between the contact element and the guide unit, in order to provide the oil along the side of the contact element as disclosed by Hildebrandt.
Re claim 2, Griesbach in view of Hildebrandt and Dopf discloses claim 1 as discussed above and further discloses the duct 48, 58 extends at least along the contact element 1 (Dopf, figs 4-6).
Re claim 3, Griesbach in view of Hildebrandt and Dopf discloses claim 1 as discussed above and further discloses the duct 48, 58 is formed by a longitudinal recess in a guide wall of the guide unit 6, 51 (figs 4-5) and/or a longitudinal recess in an outer wall of the contact element 1 (fig 6).
Re claim 4, Griesbach in view of Hildebrandt and Dopf discloses claim 3 as discussed above. Griesbach further discloses the outer wall of the contact element 16 abuts against the guide wall of the guide unit 17 (fig 2).
Re claim 5, Griesbach in view of Hildebrandt and Dopf discloses claim 3 as discussed above and further discloses at least sections of the longitudinal recess have a semicircular cross section (Dopf, figs 5-6).
Re claim 6, Griesbach in view of Hildebrandt and Dopf discloses claim 1 as discussed above and further discloses the duct 48, 58 for the oily fluid opens into the space between the shaft and the guide unit (Dopf, figs 4-6).
Re claim 7, Griesbach in view of Hildebrandt and Dopf discloses claim 1 as discussed above and further discloses a passage is formed in the guide unit 6, 51 (Dopf, figs 4-5), a volumetric flow of oily fluid through the duct 48 being able to be limited by the passage (Dopf, figs 4-5).
Re claim 8, Griesbach in view of Hildebrandt and Dopf discloses claim 1 as discussed above. Griesbach further discloses the guide unit 17 is connectable to a stator part of the machine in an electrically conductive manner (figs 1-2, [0037], 17 connected to stator through 13).
Re claim 11, Griesbach in view of Hildebrandt and Dopf discloses claim 1 as discussed above. Griesbach further discloses the contact element 16 is a pin-or bolt-shaped brush (fig 2).
Re claim 12, Griesbach in view of Hildebrandt and Dopf discloses claim 1 as discussed above. Griesbach further discloses the spring element 19 is a helical compression spring ([0038]).
Re claim 13, Griesbach in view of Hildebrandt and Dopf discloses claim 1 as discussed above. Griesbach further discloses a machine, in particular an electric drive motor or transmission having a rotor part having a shaft 7 and a discharge device according to claim 1 (figs 1-2), the contact element 16 of the discharge device contacting the shaft 7 with its sliding contact surface in order to form a sliding contact (figs 1-2, [0036] & [0038]).
Re claim 14, Griesbach in view of Hildebrandt and Dopf discloses claim 13 as discussed above and further discloses oily fluid, in particular motor or transmission oil, is provided at least in a space between the shaft and the guide unit, the space being bridged by the contact element (Griesbach, [0010] & [0040]; Dopf, fig 4, discloses oil between space).
Re claim 16, Griesbach in view of Hildebrandt and Dopf discloses claim 13 as discussed above and further discloses the contact element 16 contacts a front face of the shaft 7 (fig 2, front face formed by 21).
Re claim 17, Griesbach in view of Hildebrandt and Dopf discloses claim 13 as discussed above and further discloses the contact element contacts a jacket surface 20 of the shaft 3 (as best understood by examiner a surface of the shaft; fig 2, surface of shaft 7 formed by 21).
Re claim 18, Griesbach in view of Hildebrandt and Dopf discloses claim 5 as discussed above and further discloses the semicircular cross section has a groove (Dopf, figs 4-6, since a semicircular cross-section inherently forms a groove in the guide element or the contact element).
Re claim 19, Griesbach in view of Hildebrandt, Dopf and Zho disclose claim 9 as discussed above and further discloses the stranded wire 34 is fixed in the contact element 32 at one end and is fixed to the guide unit 31 at the other end.
With respect to the stranded wire is pressed or stamped in the contact element at one end and is welded or soldered or crimped to the guide unit at the other end, no patentable weight has been since "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695,698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griesbach in view of Hildebrandt and Dopf and in further view of Zhu et al. (CN114172325, “Zhu”, using machine translation).
Re claim 9, Griesbach in view of Hildebrandt and Dopf discloses claim 1 as discussed above but are silent with respect to the contact element is connected to the guide unit or a retaining element of the machine by a stranded wire in an electrically conductive manner.
Zhu discloses the contact element 32 is connected to the guide unit 31 or a retaining element of the machine by a stranded wire 34 in an electrically conductive manner (figs 2-4, [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the contact element of Griesbach in view of Hildebrandt and Dopf to be connected to the guide unit or a retaining element of the machine by a stranded wire in an electrically conductive manner, as disclosed by Zhu, in order to ensure electrical connection between the contact element and the guide unit, as demonstrated by Zhu.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griesbach in view of Hildebrandt and Dopf and in further view of Neuweger et al. (US20100133951, “Neuweger”).
Re claim 10, Griesbach in view of Hildebrandt and Dopf discloses claim 1 as discussed above but are silent with respect to the contact element is made essentially of a carbon-metal mixture, in particular a mixture of graphite and metal.
Neuweger discloses the contact element 10 is made essentially of a carbon-metal mixture, in particular a mixture of graphite and metal (figs 1 & 4a-c, [0021] & [0026-0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the contact element of Griesbach in view of Hildebrandt and Dopf to be made essentially of a carbon-metal mixture, in particular a mixture of graphite and metal, as disclosed by Neuweger, in order to help reduce contact resistance and low abrasive properties, as taught by Neuweger ([0008])
Re claim 20, Griesbach in view of Hildebrandt, Dopf and Neuweger disclose claim 10 as discussed above the total volumetric portion of the metal being at least 30% by volume ([0021], discloses 11 has ratio of silver to carbon of 3:2 & 12 made of copper so volume of 10 at least 30% metal), silver being the metal provided at least in a front area 11 of the contact area having the sliding contact surface 16 (fig 1, [0021], and copper being the metal provided in a rear area 12 of the contact element 10, the contact element being free of copper in the area of the sliding contact surface 16 (fig 1, [0021]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griesbach in view of Hildebrandt and Dopf and in further view of Suter et al. (EP1300927, “Suter”, using machine translation).
Re claim 15, Griesbach in view of Hildebrandt and Dopf discloses claim 13 as discussed above but is silent with respect to the shaft is essentially free of copper at least in the area where the shaft is contacted by the contact element.
Suter discloses the shaft 2 is essentially free of copper at least in the area where the shaft is contacted by the contact element 6 (fig 1, [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the shaft of Griesbach in view of Hildebrandt and Dopf to be essentially free of copper at least in the area where the shaft is contacted by the contact element, as disclosed by Suter, in order to form the rotor shaft from a material used with a contact to ground the shaft, as demonstrated by Suter.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-, 10 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12573922 in view of Dopf.
Claim 1 of instant application
US12573922 claim 1
A discharge device for discharging electric currents from a rotor part of a machine having a shaft,
the discharge device comprising a displaceable contact element received at least partially in a guide unit and serving to form an electrically conductive sliding contact between a sliding contact surface of the contact element provided for forming the sliding contact and a shaft contact surface of the shaft,
the contact element being connected to the guide unit and/or a retaining element of the machine in an electrically conductive manner and the contact element being pre-loaded towards the shaft contact surface by a spring element,
wherein the contact element is wetted at least partially, in particular at least in the area of its sliding contact surface, using an oily fluid,
A discharge device for discharging electric currents from a rotor part of a machine, said rotor part having a shaft, the discharge device comprising a displaceable contact element, which is at least partly accommodated in a guide, for forming an electroconductive sliding contact between a sliding contact surface of the contact element and a shaft contact surface of the shaft, the sliding contact surface being provided for forming the sliding contact,
the contact element being electroconductively connected to the guide and/or a retaining element of the machine, and the contact element being prestressed towards the shaft contact surface by means of a spring element,
wherein the contact element is at least partly wetted with an oily fluid, at least in the area of its sliding contact surface, and
wherein the contact element is essentially made of a carbon-metal mixture, namely a mixture of graphite and metal, the total volume fraction of the metal being at least 30 percent by volume, silver being provided as the metal at least in a front area of the contact element, said front area having the sliding contact surface, and copper being provided as the metal in a rearward area of the contact element, the contact element being free from copper in the area of the sliding contact surface.
US12573922 claim 1 discloses claim 1 of the instant application except for at least one duct being provided at least in sections of the guide unit and/or of the contact element for the oily fluid, the duct being formed by the guide unit and the contact element.
Dopf discloses at least one duct 48, 58 being provided at least in sections of the guide unit 6, 51 and/or of the contact element for the oily fluid 37 (fig 4, [0072]), the duct 48, 58 being formed by the guide unit 6, 51 and the contact element 1 (figs 4-6, [0072] & [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the guide element and/or the contact element with at least one duct being provided at least in sections of the guide unit and/or of the contact element for the oily fluid, the duct being formed by the guide unit and the contact element, as disclosed by Dopf, in order to provide a path for providing oil to at least partly wet the contact element in the area of the sliding contact, as demonstrated by Dopf.
US12573922 claim 1 in view of Dopf further discloses:
Claim 20/10/1 of the instant application
US12573922 claim 1
Claim 10
The discharge device according to claim 1, wherein the contact element is made essentially of a carbon-metal mixture, in particular a mixture of graphite and metal.
Claim 20
The discharge device according to claim 10, wherein the total volumetric portion of the metal being at least 30% by volume, silver being the metal provided at least in a front area of the contact area having the sliding contact surface, and
copper being the metal provided in a rear area of the contact element, the contact element being free of copper in the area of the sliding contact surface.
…wherein the contact element is essentially made of a carbon-metal mixture, namely a mixture of graphite and metal,
the total volume fraction of the metal being at least 30 percent by volume, silver being provided as the metal at least in a front area of the contact element, said front area having the sliding contact surface, and
copper being provided as the metal in a rearward area of the contact element, the contact element being free from copper in the area of the sliding contact surface.
Conclusion
Griesbach (DE102023203251) is not prior art but discloses similar invention as applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5715. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30-5pm 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, Seye Iwarere can be reached on (571)270-5112. 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://pair-direct.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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights