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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the first non-final office action on the merits. Claims 19-36 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority under National Stage Application No. PCT/EP2020/081193, filed on 11/05/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/24/2025 has been received and considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are accepted.
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.
Claim(s) 19-21, 23-29 and 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stark (US 20200238833 A1), in view of Lasiewicz (WO 2016128939 A1, provided) and Kanazawa et al. (US 9643495 B2).
Regarding claim 19, Stark teaches (Fig. 1-4): System for electrically feeding at least one electrically powered vehicle (2)(Fig. 1), comprising at least one suspended contact wire (14) extending along a road section (roadway 12) on which the at least one vehicle is adapted to travel (Fig. 1), and at least one current collector (collector 4) being adapted to co-act with said at contact wire (14), said contact wire (14) comprising at least one electric conductor being adapted to be electrically energized (para. 0069), said current collector (4) comprising:- at least one contact element (contact strips 18) being adapted to connect mechanically and electrically with a corresponding electric conductor of said contact wire (14)(Fig. 2), and - at least one collector arm (arm 6) supporting at least one contact element (18) at its first end and being adapted to directly or indirectly connect to an electrically powered vehicle (2) with its second end (Fig. 1), wherein at least one collector arm (6) is formed by at least two serially arranged arm segments comprising first and second arm segments being directly or indirectly connected to each other (annotated Fig. 1 below), wherein said first arm segment comprises said first end of the collector arm (Fig. 1), said first arm segment (annotated Fig. 1 below) being provided with forcing means (primary spring elements 20) arranged to, when said first arm segment is within a working distance from the contact wire (14), provide a force towards the contact wire such that the at least one contact element (18) connects with the corresponding electric conductor (Fig. 1-2; para. 0078).
Stark teaches (Fig. 1): at least one current collector (collector 4) being adapted to co-act with a suspended contact wire (14), but does not teach that the current collector co-act with an elongated slotted element, comprising at least one electric conductor arranged in at least one slot in said elongated slotted element and being adapted to be electrically energized.
However, Lasiewicz teaches an alternate current collector for a vehicle, wherein (Fig. 1 and 4-5): the current collector (collector 1) co-act with an elongated slotted element (slot of charging conduit 21), comprising at least one electric conductor (conductive strips 23) arranged in at least one slot in said elongated slotted element (21) and being adapted to be electrically energized (page 8, lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Stark to modify the conducting wire into an elongated slotted element with conductors for receiving a contacting element of the collector, as disclosed by Lasiewicz, with a reasonable expectation of success because an elongated slotted element or conductor rail has no mechanical tension, and eliminates the risk of the contact wire breaking, snapping, or falling on platforms.
Stark teaches (Fig. 1-4): said second arm segment (annotated Fig. 1 below), but does not explicitly teach that the second arm segment is provided with at least one actuator configured to act on the second arm segment to displace the first arm segment to a position within said working distance.
However, Kanazawa teaches an alternate current collector for a vehicle, wherein (Fig. 1-3 and 5): a second arm segment (8) is provided with at least one actuator (hydraulic cylinder 14) configured to act on the second arm segment (8) to displace a first arm segment (10) to a position within a working distance (Fig. 5; col. 5, lines 49-63).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Stark to include an actuator configured to act on the second arm segment to displace the first arm segment to a position within said working distance, as disclosed by Kanazawa, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow the current collector to be vertically movable for collecting electricity or stowage.
Regarding claim 20, Stark, Lasiewicz and Kanazawa teach the elements of claim 19 above. The combination of Stark, Lasiewicz and Kanazawa further teaches: said first arm segment (Stark, annotated Fig. 1 below) and said forcing means (Stark, primary spring elements 20) are configured such that displacement thereof is faster than displacement of the second arm segment by means of the at least one actuator (hydraulic cylinder 14 of Kanazawa).
It is known that spring elements have faster initial displacement in response to a sudden force, in comparison to a hydraulic cylinder.
Regarding claim 21, Stark, Lasiewicz and Kanazawa teach the elements of claim 19 above. Stark teaches (Fig. 1): two arm segments (annotated Fig. 1 below), but does not explicitly teach that said first arm segment has a smaller moving mass and/or shorter length than the second arm segment.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Stark to design the first arm segment with a smaller moving mass and shorter length than the second arm segment, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow the upper arm to respond more quickly to high-frequency variations in the contact surface, and reduce inertia for more energy efficiency and faster operation. Such a modification would have been an obvious matter of design choice, since it would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change is size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 23, Stark, Lasiewicz and Kanazawa teach the elements of claim 19 above. Stark further teaches (Fig. 1-4): said forcing means (primary spring elements 20) is configured to provide said force (pressing force and corresponding counterforce) being above a predetermined threshold value when said first arm segment is within a working distance from the contact wire (a stronger pressing force of the contact strip against the contact wire reduces deflection; para. 0011, lines 25-31).
Regarding claim 24, Stark, Lasiewicz and Kanazawa teach the elements of claim 19 above. Stark further teaches (Fig. 1-4): said forcing means (primary spring elements 20) comprises a resilient element (20) providing a resilient force towards said corresponding electric conductor (14)(Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 25, Stark, Lasiewicz and Kanazawa teach the elements of claim 19 above. Stark further teaches (Fig. 1-4): said forcing means (primary spring elements 20) is formed by said first arm segment (annotated Fig. 1 below) being at least partly formed from a resilient material (spring element).
Regarding claim 26, Stark, Lasiewicz and Kanazawa teach the elements of claim 19 above. Stark teaches (Fig. 1-4): said forcing means (primary spring elements 20), but does not explicitly teach that the forcing means comprises actuating means configured to provide said force.
However, Kanazawa further teaches (Fig. 6): a forcing means (spring 15) for the raising a first arm segment (10) comprises actuating means (hydraulic cylinder 14) configured to provide said force (as the bottom frame 8 is raised by hydraulic cylinder, the tensile force produced in the spring increases; col. 5, lines 49-51).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Stark to provide a forcing means for raising the first arm segment through a hydraulic cylinder, as disclosed by Kanazawa, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would enable the upper arm segment to be raised in conjunction with the lower arm segment through a hydraulic cylinder (Kanazawa, col. 5, lines 61-63), providing pressing force for the current collector against the overhead conductor.
Regarding claim 27, Stark, Lasiewicz and Kanazawa teach the elements of claim 19 above. Stark does not explicitly teach that said first arm segment is directly or indirectly connected to the second arm segment by means of at least one rotational joint.
However, Kanazawa further teaches (Fig. 4): a first arm segment (10) is directly or indirectly connected to the second arm segment (8) by means of at least one rotational joint (connecting shaft 9; col. 4, lines 49-51).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Stark to include a rotational joint between the upper and lower arm segments, as disclosed by kanazawa, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow the linkage to function as a parallelogram, enabling relative angular movement between the segments for necessary geometric changes to adapt to its position.
Regarding claim 28, Stark, Lasiewicz and Kanazawa teach the elements of claim 19 above. Stark does not explicitly teach that said second arm segment comprises or is connected to at least one rotational joint for directly or indirectly rotationally connecting the second arm segment to a vehicle.
However, Kanazawa further teaches (Fig. 4): a second arm segment (8) comprises or is connected to at least one rotational joint (rocking support shaft 7) for directly or indirectly rotationally connecting the second arm segment to a vehicle (col. 4, lines 42-49; Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Stark to include a rotational joint on the second arm segment, as disclosed by kanazawa, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow the linkage to function as a parallelogram, enabling relative angular movement between the segments for necessary geometric changes to adapt to its position.
Regarding claim 29, Stark, Lasiewicz and Kanazawa teach the elements of claim 28 above. The combination of Stark and Kanazawa further teaches: said at least one actuator (hydraulic cylinder 14 of Kanazawa; Fig. 5) is configured to rotate the second arm segment (8) around a rotational axis defined by the rotational joint (rocking support shaft 7)(col. 4, lines 42-49; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 35, Stark, Lasiewicz and Kanazawa teach the elements of claim 19 above. Stark does not explicitly teach an electronic control unit (ECU) configured to control the at least one actuator of the second arm segment to displace the first arm segment to a position within the working distance.
However, Lasiewicz further teaches: “In order to raise arm 13 automatically, the assembly may be equipped with a proper system consisting of sensors, a controller and actuators” (Lasiewicz, page 10, lines 11-13).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Stark to include an ECU for controlling an actuator for displacing the arms, as disclosed by Lasiewicz, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would enable an operator to automatically control the raising or lowering of the current collector.
Regarding claim 36, Stark, Lasiewicz and Kanazawa teach the elements of claim 19 above. Stark does not explicitly teach controlling the at least one actuator of the second arm segment to displace the first arm segment to a position within the working distance.
However, Lasiewicz further teaches: “In order to raise arm 13 automatically, the assembly may be equipped with a proper system consisting of sensors, a controller and actuators” (Lasiewicz, page 10, lines 11-13).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Stark to include an ECU for controlling an actuator for displacing the arms, as disclosed by Lasiewicz, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would enable an operator to automatically control the raising or lowering of the current collector.
PNG
media_image1.png
415
571
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stark (US 20200238833 A1), in view of Lasiewicz (WO 2016128939 A1, provided), Kanazawa et al. (US 9643495 B2) and Vahle (DE 102015122423 A1, provided).
Regarding claims 30 and 31, Stark does not explicitly teach that said second arm segment is a telescopic arm directly or indirectly connectable to a vehicle, and at least one actuator is configured to extend and withdraw the telescopic arm.
However, Vahle teaches an alternate current collector for a vehicle, wherein (Fig. 1-3 and 8): an arm segment is a telescopic arm (telescopic arm 18) directly or indirectly connectable to a vehicle (Vehicle F)(Fig. 1), and at least one actuator (linear drive A) is configured to extend and withdraw the telescopic arm (Fig. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Stark to modify a second arm segment into a telescopic arm connectable to the vehicle and extendable by an actuator, as disclosed by Vahle, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would offer compactness for vehicles with limited roof space and precise, controlled extension/retraction, ensuring optimal contact with overhead lines.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stark (US 20200238833 A1), in view of Lasiewicz (WO 2016128939 A1, provided), Kanazawa et al. (US 9643495 B2) and Bentley (US 0574377 A).
Regarding claim 32, Stark does not explicitly teach a sliding device arranged between said first and second arm segments, said sliding device being configured to allow lateral movement of the first arm segment relative the second arm segment.
However, Bentley teaches an alternate current collector for a vehicle, wherein (Fig. 1): a sliding device (lateral extension F with rod G) is arranged between first and second arm segments (first arm segment A2 and second arm segment A1)(Fig. 1), said sliding device (F, G) being configured to allow lateral movement of the first arm segment (A2) relative the second arm segment (A1)(Bentley, page 1, col. 2, lines 67-75).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Stark to include a sliding device between the two arm segments, as disclosed by Bentley, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would enable relative lateral sliding movement between the two arm segments, providing additional flexibility for the current collector to contact an overhead conductor.
Claim(s) 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stark (US 20200238833 A1), in view of Lasiewicz (WO 2016128939 A1, provided), Kanazawa et al. (US 9643495 B2) and Shallenberger (US 0588188 A).
Regarding claims 33 and 34, Stark does not explicitly teach a sliding device arranged at the second end of the collector arm to allow lateral movement of the collector arm relative a vehicle, and at least one actuator comprises an additional actuator co-acting with the sliding device to actuate said lateral movement.
However, Shallenberger teaches an alternate current collector for a vehicle, wherein (Fig. 1-2): a sliding device (rollers R) arranged at the second end (bottom end) of the collector arm (arm C) to allow lateral movement of the collector arm (C) relative a vehicle (Fig. 1-2; Shallenberger, page 1, col. 1, lines 34-40), and at least one actuator (arms B and springs S providing upward pressure) co-acting with the sliding device (R) to actuate said lateral movement (Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Stark to include a sliding device arranged at the second end of the collector arm to allow lateral movement of the collector arm relative a vehicle, and an actuator co-acting with the sliding device, as disclosed by Shallenberger, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would enable relative lateral sliding movement between the arm segments and the vehicle, providing additional flexibility for the current collector to contact an overhead conductor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is 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 claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 22, the prior art fails to teach that said forcing means is configured to provide a stronger force and/or shorter response time than said at least one actuator. While Stark teaches (Fig. 1-4): said first arm segment (annotated Fig. 1 below) being provided with forcing means (primary spring elements 20); and the secondary reference Kanazawa teaches (Fig. 1-3 and 5): a second arm segment (8) is provided with at least one actuator (hydraulic cylinder 14) configured to act on the second arm segment, the examiner finds no obvious reason to modify the combination of Stark and Kanazawa such that the forcing means is configured to provide a stronger force and/or shorter response time than said at least one actuator. Such a modification would require improper hindsight reasoning and modifications to a modifying reference.
PNG
media_image1.png
415
571
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure of a system for electrically feeding a powered vehicle having arms and actuators: US-5954171-A, US-9199541-B2, US-10913359-B2, US-12054056-B2, US-12384253-B2, EP-0047819-A1, DE-19540914-C2, WO-2015075773-A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENG XI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6102. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. 9:00am to 6:00pm 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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at 5712726684. 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.
/CHENG LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3615