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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/24/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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 27-46 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.
ISSUE 1 — AMBIGUOUS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN “TRACKING DEVICE,” “BODY PART,” AND “COLLECTOR ARM”
Claims 27, 29, 30, 31, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43 each recite a “tracking device comprising a body part,” where the tracking device is said to be “connected to the at least one collector arm.” However, it is unclear whether:
(1) the tracking device is an element distinct from the collector arm but physically connected thereto, (2) the body part forms part of the collector arm itself, or (3) the tracking device is a subassembly of the collector arm.
The specification alternately refers to the tracking device as “connected to the collector arm at its first end” (§[0011]) and as “connected via the collector arm” (§[0050]). Because these structural relationships are not consistently defined, one of ordinary skill cannot determine the precise boundaries of the claimed system.
Suggestion: clarify whether the “tracking device” is part of, or merely attached to, the collector arm, and amend dependent claims accordingly.
ISSUE 2 — USE OF RELATIVE TERMS WITHOUT REFERENCE BASE
Terms such as “extended positions,” “withdrawn positions,” “greater than or equal to,” “bottom,” “top,” “laterally facing,” and “aligned” (see claims 27, 29–31, 39–42) are purely relative and lack a defined frame of reference. The specification states that “top” and “bottom” are “not necessarily vertical” (§[0019]) but provides no objective coordinate system. Consequently, the relative terms render the scope of the claims indefinite.
Suggestion: recite specific geometric relationships (e.g., “positions defined with respect to the lateral axis of the slotted element”) or provide quantifiable ranges or angular definitions.
ISSUE 3 — UNCLEAR FUNCTIONAL LANGUAGE: “CONFIGURED TO ACT ON THE COLLECTOR ARM TO DISPLACE THE FIRST END TOWARDS THE ELONGATED SLOTTED ELEMENT”
In claim 27, the functional phrase “configured to act on … to displace … towards” fails to specify whether the actuator directly contacts the collector arm, acts through an intermediate linkage, or is remotely coupled. Although the description provides examples (hydraulic, pneumatic, or electric actuators; §[0011]–[0017]), it does not identify the operative mechanical path in every embodiment. As such, the claim scope depends on unspecified mechanical coupling structures and is indefinite under § 112(b).
Suggestion: recite the nature of the mechanical connection (e.g., “the actuator being coupled to the collector arm by a pivot linkage or hydraulic piston”).
ISSUE 4 — LACK OF ANTECEDENT BASIS
(a) Claim 27 introduces “the at least one current collector comprising at least one contact element … and at least one collector arm … and at least one actuator …,” and later recites “said contact element is connected to the at least one collector arm by means of a tracking device.” The phrase “said contact element” lacks clear antecedent because multiple contact elements may be encompassed by “at least one.”
(b) Claim 39 recites “wherein the guiding wheels or sliding elements are laterally displaceable … between extended positions where the guiding wheels … are spaced apart a first distance … and withdrawn positions … such that the guiding wheels … roll or slide against respective lateral portions.” The terms “guiding wheels” and “lateral portions” each appear multiple times without singular/collective clarity.
Suggestion: provide consistent pluralization and define whether “the” refers to the same set or a subset introduced earlier.
ISSUE 5 — AMBIGUOUS “ALIGNMENT ACTUATOR” AND “AT LEAST ONE ACTUATOR”
Claims 27–31 and 38–42 recite both “at least one actuator” and a distinct “alignment actuator.” The specification (§[0011]–[0017]) uses “alignment actuator” to mean either (i) a dedicated device for lateral alignment or (ii) a general actuator also performing alignment. Because the boundary between these two is unclear, the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be determined.
Suggestion: specify whether the “alignment actuator” is a component separate from the actuator that displaces the collector arm vertically, or whether both functions may be combined in a single actuator.
ISSUE 6 — AMBIGUOUS REFERENCE TO “GROUND CONTACT ELEMENT”
Claims 44–45 recite “at least one ground contact element … arranged to co-act with an exterior portion … connected to ground.” The phrase “exterior portion” is indefinite because the specification describes multiple possible exterior surfaces of the slotted element (see §[0064]) without identifying which one is “connected to ground.” Without that identification, the location and function of the “ground contact element” cannot be determined.
Suggestion: define “exterior portion” in structural terms, e.g., “an outer metallic casing electrically connected to ground potential.”
ISSUE 7 — DEPENDENT CLAIM INCONSISTENCY
Claim 46 depends on claim 27, but claim 46 recites “each contact element comprises at least two contact element parts being individually resiliently preloaded,” whereas claim 27 only allows for “at least one contact element.” Thus, if only a single contact element exists, the plural limitation of claim 46 lacks antecedent basis and may render the dependency improper under § 112(b).
Suggestion: amend claim 46 to depend from a claim that recites “a plurality of contact elements,” or modify the dependency to “according to any preceding claim wherein the system comprises at least two contact elements.”
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 31 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
ISSUE 8 — INOPERABLE OR UNSUPPORTED “ANY ANGLE FROM VERTICAL” CONFIGURATIONS
The description (§[0020], [0028], [0068]) states that the slotted element “may be arranged at any angle from the vertical plane,” yet no enabling detail is provided as to how gravitational load, alignment sensors, or actuators would perform under arbitrary orientations (e.g., 30° or horizontal). Absent structural teaching (e.g., counterweights, flexible linkages, rotational frames), undue experimentation would be required to realize embodiments at such arbitrary angles.
Suggestion: limit claim scope to orientations supported by the disclosure (e.g., vertical, horizontal, or defined angular range) or supplement the specification with functional description for arbitrary orientations.
ISSUE 9 — CONTROL SYSTEM DETAILS
Claims 31 and 38 recite an “electronic control unit configured to … control the at least one actuator” in response to position-sensor signals. The specification (see §[0016], [0017]) only states that such systems are “well known in the art,” without identifying the control logic, feedback loop, or actuation sequence beyond general narrative. One of ordinary skill would require non-trivial experimentation to implement an ECU that sequentially executes the multi-step alignment method claimed.
Suggestion: incorporate or describe the basic algorithmic control flow (e.g., PID-type feedback, thresholding logic, or state-machine sequence) to satisfy enablement for automated alignment control.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28-46 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 27 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON C SMITH whose telephone number is (703)756-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (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 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.
/Jason C Smith/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613