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 .
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 7-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koplin (WO 9005395 A1) in view of Heeger et al. (DE 102021213737 A1).
Regarding claims 7 & 10-12: Koplin discloses a multifunctional shaft adapter (slip-ring holder 20, 20’ mounted on rotor-shaft 12; Fig. 2; Claim 1), wherein the shaft adapter is configured to connect to the shaft of the electric motor drive unit and is substantially produced from a plastics material (plastic support part 21, 21’ is fixed on rotor shaft 12 and slip-ring holder 20, 20’ is pushed on the end shaft; Claim 11); contacts are embedded in the shaft adapter (slip rings 14a, 14b and connecting leads 15a, 15b are embedded in one-piece plastic support part 21, 21’; Claim 1) and configured for external excitation of a rotor of a synchronous machine of the electric motor drive unit (connecting leads 15a’, 15b’ connect to slip rings 141 14b to exciter winding 13 of rotor 10), wherein the rotor (rotor 10) is connected to the shaft (shaft 12).
Koplin differs from the invention as claimed because Koplin does not disclose a locking device provided for fitting to an electric motor drive unit; a lockable shaft; and wherein the rotor is materially connected to a positive-locking element for connection to the lockable shaft.
Heeger et al., however, teaches a locking device provided for fitting to an electric motor drive unit (locking mechanism 2 is integrated into the electric motor drive unit EM-AE); a lockable shaft (lockable shaft 6); and wherein the rotor is materially connected to a positive-locking element for connection to the lockable shaft (positive/form fitting element 8 cooperates with shaft-side complement 10 and engages it in a positive form fitting region FB to block shaft 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide the rotor shaft and shaft-mounted electrical excitation arrangement of Koplin with the shaft-locking arrangement taught by Heeger et al. in order to selectively prevent rotation of the electric machine shaft while retaining the known shaft-mounted electrical interface for supplying excitation current to the rotor.
Claims 10 & 11 additionally recite a positive-locking element and a further positive-locking element of the locking mechanism actuatable in an axial stroke movement and longitudinally with respect to the shaft to lock the lockable shaft. Koplin does not disclose these limitations.
Koplin, however, teaches a positive-locking element (positive locking element 8 engages complimentary shaft side element 10 to block shaft 6) and a further positive-locking element of the locking mechanism actuatable in an axial stroke movement and longitudinally with respect to the shaft to lock the lockable shaft (element 8 is electrically actuated in an axial stroke movement in direction x-x along shaft 6 and element 8 engages shaft-side complement 10 in form fitting region FB thereby locking shaft 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have included a positive-locking element and a further positive-locking element of the locking mechanism actuatable in an axial stroke movement and longitudinally with respect to the shaft to lock the lockable shaft as taught by Heeger et al. on the invention of Koplin for the purpose of achieving a compact design in order to save space.
Regarding claim 8, Koplin as modified by Heeger et al. discloses the multifunctional shaft adapter as claimed in claim 7. Koplin further discloses wherein the contacts comprise: at least two slip rings (sliprings 14a & 14b) configured to contact an associated brush (located on slip ring holder 20, 20’; Fig. 2); and at least one conductor track (busbars 15a’ & 15b’) associated with a respective slip ring and which extends from the associated slip ring through the plastics material of the shaft adapter (Paras. 0027, 0029 & 0033).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koplin in view of Heeger et al. and in further view of Krogh et al. (US 2011/0210644 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Koplin as modified by Heeger et al. discloses the multifunctional shaft adapter as claimed in claim 7. Koplin differs from the invention as claimed because Koplin does not disclose further comprising: a sensor component of metallic design, at least in some portion or portions, fixed relative to a housing of the locking device, and configured to interact with a signal transmitter to detect a position of the rotor of the synchronous machine, received in a fixed location by the shaft adapter.
Krogh et al., however, teaches a slip ring assembly with shaft holder including a sensor component (encoder shaft 5) of metallic design (Para. 0054), at least in some portion or portions, fixed relative to a housing of the locking device (shaft 5 Is fastened within holder 6 – holder 6 can be molded around shaft 5), and configured to interact with a signal transmitter (shaft 5 is inserted into encoder 4) to detect a position of the rotor of the synchronous machine, received in a fixed location by the shaft adapter (encoder 4 counts rotations of the rotor and provides information for rotor field control).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have included a sensor component of metallic design, at least in some portion or portions, fixed relative to a housing of the locking device, and configured to interact with a signal transmitter to detect a position of the rotor of the synchronous machine, received in a fixed location by the shaft adapter as taught by Krogh et al. on the invention of Koplin for the purpose of providing detection rotor rotation/position while electrically insulating the encoder from the slip ring assembly and maintain dimensional stability of the sensor component.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and cited on PTO Form 892 is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY LYNN JOHNS whose telephone number is (313) 446-4852. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00-5:30.
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, J Allen Shriver can be reached on 303 297-4337. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/HILARY L JOHNS/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights