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 .
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 pins of claim 12 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.
Claims 1-14 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.
Claim 1 recites “rigid”. The term “rigid” in claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rigid” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear which materials or structures would be considered “rigid” and which would not. For example, would plastic be considered rigid?
Claim 1 recites “securely mounted”. It is unclear what structure, if any is provided by the term “securely”. It is unclear which types of mountings would be considered “secure” and which would not.
Claim 8 recites “such as carbon”. The phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by van Bezooijen U.S. 2019/0109520.
Re clm 1, Bezooijen discloses a grounding ring (Fig. 3) intended to be mounted between a fixed element (11) and a rotating element (1) that is rotatable relative to the fixed element about an axis of rotation, the ring comprising: a first frame (2) that is annular and rigid (metal), securely mounted to one among the first element and the rotating element, a membrane (10) that is annular and is made of an elastic material (PTFE; [0044]), extending between the first end in contact with the first frame and a second end in contact with the other among the fixed element and the rotating element, said membrane having a body (such as 29) between the first end and the second end, a second frame (3) that is annular and rigid, securely mounted to the first frame and adapted to clamp ([0044]) and fix the membrane between the first frame and the second frame, wherein the first frame and the membrane are capable of conducting an electric current between the fixed element and the rotating element, and said ring being characterized in that the membrane comprises a wear zone (22/27) at the second end, the wear zone being thicker than the body of the membrane, and the wear zone forming a contact surface configured to slide on a sliding surface of the other element while in contact therewith and to provide electrical conductivity between the fixed element and the rotating element.
Re clm 2, Bezooijen further discloses the wear zone of the membrane extends in the direction of the axis of rotation for a length that is greater than or equal to the thickness of the body of the membrane, the ring being in the mounted position between the fixed element and the rotating element (as shown by Fig. 3).
Re clm 3, Bezooijen further discloses the wear zone has a greater thickness than the thickness of the body of the membrane (as shown in Fig. 3).
Re clm 4, Bezooijen further discloses the wear zone has a mass (at 22/27) that is configured to ensure contact between the surface and the sliding surface over a range of rotational speeds of the rotating element.
Re clm 5, Bezooijen further discloses the membrane is fixed to the second frame (clamped between 2 and 3).
Re clm 6, Bezooijen further discloses the membrane comprises radial slots extending to the second frame and ending in an open portion (as shown in Fig. 2).
Re clm 7, Bezooijen further discloses the membrane comprises an electrically conductive coating, said coating being at least one the contact surface of the wear zone ([0081]).
Re clm 9, Bezooijen further discloses the second frame is capable of conducting an electric current between the fixed element and the rotating element (since both frames are made of metal, they are both capable of conducting electric current as claimed).
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 1-5, 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu CN 113775653 in view of Koch DE 102014100577.
Re clm 1, Liu discloses a grounding ring (Fig. 1) intended to be mounted between a fixed element (1) and a rotating element (2) that is rotatable relative to the fixed element about an axis of rotation, the ring comprising: a first frame (3) that is annular and rigid (metal), securely mounted to one among the first element and the rotating element, a membrane (4) that is annular and is made of an elastic material (PTFE), extending between the first end in contact with the first frame and a second end in contact with the other among the fixed element and the rotating element, said membrane having a body between the first end and the second end, a second frame (32) that is annular and rigid, securely mounted to the first frame and adapted to clamp and fix the membrane between the first frame and the second frame, wherein the first frame and the membrane are capable of conducting an electric current between the fixed element and the rotating element, and said ring being characterized in that the membrane comprises a wear zone (where 4 contacts 2) at the second end, and the wear zone forming a contact surface configured to slide on a sliding surface of the other element while in contact therewith and to provide electrical conductivity between the fixed element and the rotating element.
Liu does not disclose a sealing ring comprising a wear zone in which the wear zone is thicker than the body of the membrane.
Koch teaches a sealing ring (108) comprising a wear zone (140, Fig. 1) in which the wear zone is thicker than the body of the membrane (124) for the purpose of providing a sealing element in which the heat input can be brought about in a targeted manner ([0046]).
Since both Liu and Koch disclose PTFE sealing rings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the PTFE ring of Liu with the sealing ring of Koch and provide a wear zone in which the wear zone is thicker than the body of the membrane for the purpose of providing a sealing element in which the heat input can be brought about in a targeted manner for the purpose of providing a sealing element in which the heat input can be brought about in a targeted manner.
Re clm 2, Liu in view of Koch further discloses the wear zone of the membrane extends in the direction of the axis of rotation for a length that is greater than or equal to the thickness of the body of the membrane, the ring being in the mounted position between the fixed element and the rotating element (shown in Fig. 1 of Koch).
Assuming Koch does not disclose the requisite dimensions:
Liu in view of Koch further discloses the wear zone of the membrane extends in the direction of the axis of rotation for a length, the ring being in the mounted position between the fixed element and the rotating element.
Liu in view of Koch does not explicitly state that the membrane extends in the direction of the axis of rotation for a length that is greater than or equal to the thickness of the body of the membrane.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Liu in view of Koch and provide the membrane extends in the direction of the axis of rotation for a length that is greater than or equal to the thickness of the body of the membrane, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP §2144.04 (IV)(A). Changing the dimension of the wear part would not perform any differently than the prior art since both would still seal and conduct electricity.
Re clm 3, the improvement of Koch further discloses the wear zone has a greater thickness than the thickness of the body of the membrane (140, Fig. 1).
Re clm 4, the improvement of Koch further discloses the wear zone has a mass (at 140) that is configured to ensure contact between the surface and the sliding surface over a range of rotational speeds of the rotating element.
Re clm 5, Liu further discloses the membrane is fixed to the second frame (4 is clamped between 3 and 32 and thus fixed to both).
Re clm 9, Liu further discloses the second frame is capable of conducting an electric current between the fixed element and the rotating element (since both frame elements and the seal are conductive, they are capable of conducting an electric current as claimed).
Re clm 14, Liu further discloses a rolling bearing (1 and 2) comprising a grounding ring according to claim 1, and rolling bodies (rolling bearing) arranged within a rolling space to allow the relative rotation of the rotating element with respect to the fixed element, about the axis of rotation.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bezooijen U.S. 2019/0109520 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wiedmann DE 102014112561.
Bezooijen discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 8, Bezooijen discloses a conductive PTFE material, but is silent as to the specifics of the material and does not disclose the membrane is formed from a PTFE material containing a conductive filler, such as carbon.
Wiedmann teaches a conductive PTFE element that is formed from a PTFE material containing a conductive filler, such as carbon ([0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the unknown conductive PTFE composition of Bezooijen with that of the PTFE and graphite/carbon of Wiedmann, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP § 2144.07.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bezooijen U.S. 2019/0109520 as applied to claim 1 above.
Bezooijen discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 10, Bezooijen does not disclose the second frame has a radial height that is greater than a radial height of the first frame.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Bezooijen and provide the second frame has a radial height that is greater than a radial height of the first frame, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP §2144.04 (IV)(A). Adjusting the radial height of the frame elements would not provide a device that functioned any differently from the device of Bezooijen. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would opt to minimize the size of the frames such that the holding and conductivity of the frame and membrane are sufficient while reducing the weight of the frames as much as possible.
Re clm 11, Bezooijen does not disclose the radial height of the second frame is at least twice the radial height of the first frame, and the radial height of the first frame is less than half the distance between the fixed element and the rotating element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Bezooijen and provide the radial height of the second frame is at least twice the radial height of the first frame, and the radial height of the first frame is less than half the distance between the fixed element and the rotating element, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP §2144.04 (IV)(A). Adjusting the radial height of the frame elements would not provide a device that functioned any differently from the device of Bezooijen. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would opt to minimize the size of the frames such that the holding and conductivity of the frame and membrane are sufficient while reducing the weight of the frames as much as possible.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bezooijen U.S. 2019/0109520 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lindener U.S. 2022/0311315.
Bezooijen discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 12, Bezooijen does not disclose the first frame member or the second frame member comprise pins adapted to penetrate the membrane and secure the membrane to the first or second frame.
Lindener teaches a grounding ring comprising the first frame member or the second frame member comprise pins (45, Fig. 36) adapted to penetrate the membrane and secure the membrane to the first or second frame for the purpose of establishing a conductive connection between the frame and the membrane ([0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bezooijen and provide the first frame member or the second frame member comprise pins adapted to penetrate the membrane and secure the membrane to the first or second frame for the purpose of establishing a conductive connection between the frame and the membrane as well as to further ensure that the membrane is securely fastened to the frame members.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bezooijen U.S. 2019/0109520 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Giehls DE 102019133886.
Bezooijen discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 13, Bezooijen does not disclose the second frame has an internal end that is curved towards the second end of the membrane, when the ring is in the mounted position.
Giehls teaches a grounding ring in which the second frame has an internal end that is curved towards the second end of the membrane (at 213, Fig. 4c), when the ring is in the mounted position for the purpose of providing angled support which improves the clamping connection as well as providing a more stable contact ([0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bezooijen and provide the second frame has an internal end that is curved towards the second end of the membrane, when the ring is in the mounted position for the purpose of providing angled support which improves the clamping connection as well as providing a more stable contact.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN B WAITS whose telephone number is (571)270-3664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 6-4 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, John R Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. 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.
/ALAN B WAITS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
