Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/043,598

BOOM HEAD ASSEMBLY FOR AN ELECTRIC OR HYBRID VEHICLE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 01, 2023
Priority
Sep 04, 2020 — AU 2020903185 +1 more
Examiner
LIN, CHENG XI
Art Unit
3615
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Multibus Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allowance Rate
262 granted / 310 resolved
+32.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
332
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
86.6%
+46.6% vs TC avg
§102
8.3%
-31.7% vs TC avg
§112
2.1%
-37.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 310 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 17-32 are currently pending. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. AU2020903185, filed on 09/04/2020. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/01/2023 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) 17-21, 27-30 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Messerschmidt (US 9376023 B2), in view of Williston (US 3387103 A). Regarding claim 17, Messerschmidt teaches (Fig. 1-3): A boom apparatus for an electric or hybrid vehicle (Fig. 1), comprising: a first pole (pole current collector 3) being alignable with a first wire (overhead line 1) of an overhead power line system (Fig. 1-2); a second pole (3) being alignable with a second wire (1) of the overhead power line system (Fig. 2); a first boom head assembly (annotated Fig. 2 below) coupled to the first pole (3), and including a first collector (contact shoe 2) configured to abut the first wire (1)(Fig. 2); a second boom head assembly (annotated Fig. 2 below) coupled to the second pole (3), and including a second collector (2) configured to abut the second wire (1)(Fig. 2); wherein the first and second boom head assemblies are configured to form an electrical circuit (electronic circuit) when engaging the respective wires (1) of the overhead power line system (it is known for trolleybuses to have separate overhead wires, one carrying positive voltage and the other negative return, forming a complete circuit; Claim 3; Fig. 2). Messerschmidt teaches first and second boom head assemblies (annotated Fig. 2 below), but does not teach that the first boom head assembly includes a first movable guide positioned adjacent the first collector, and the second boom head assembly includes a second movable guide positioned adjacent the second collector, the first and second movable guides being configured to aid in the alignment of the corresponding collector with the respective first wire or second wire simultaneously; and wherein the first and second movable guides are configured to move simultaneously into a lowered position when said electrical circuit is formed by the first and second boom head assemblies engaging respective wires of the overhead power line system. However, Williston teaches an alternate boom head assembly for an electric vehicle, wherein (Fig. 1-3): boom head assembly (Fig. 1) includes a movable guide (guide arms 23) positioned adjacent a collector (shoe 25)(Fig. 1-3), the movable guide (23) being configured to aid in the alignment of the collector (25) with a wire (line 17)(col. 1, lines 13-21); and wherein the movable guide (23) is configured to move into a lowered position (Fig. 3) when an electrical circuit is formed by the boom head assembly engaging the wire (17) of the overhead power line system (Fig. 1; col. 1, lines 40-46). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Messerschmidt to add movable guides to both the first and second boom heads, and have the guides help align the collectors with overhead wires, as disclosed by Williston, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would ensure reliable electrical power transfer, minimize wear and tear, and prevent damage to the equipment. Regarding claim 18, Messerschmidt and Williston teach the elements of claim 17, as stated above. Messerschmidt does not teach that the first boom head assembly and second boom head assembly each include a respective actuator for moving the respective movable guide relative to a respective housing based on the engagement or disengagement of the first and second boom head assemblies with the positive or negative wires of the overhead power line system. However, Williston further teaches (Fig. 1-3): the boom head assembly include an actuator (reversible motor 70 and push rods 21) for moving the respective movable guide (guide arms 23) relative to a respective housing (body 28) based on the engagement or disengagement of the boom head assembly with the wires of the overhead power line system (col. 2, lines 30-36). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Messerschmidt to add movable guides movable relative to a respective housing, to both the first and second boom heads, and have the guides actuated by an actuator, as disclosed by Williston, with a reasonable expectation of success because the automatically actuated guides would ensure reliable electrical power transfer, minimize wear and tear, and prevent damage to the equipment. Regarding claim 19, Messerschmidt and Williston teach the elements of claim 18, as stated above. The combination of Messerschmidt and Williston further teaches through Williston: the actuator (21, 70) of the boom head assembly moves the respective movable guides (23) into a lowered position when the circuit is formed by the boom head assembly engaging respective wires (17) of the overhead power line system (normally in a lowered position; Williston, col. 1, lines 36-46; Fig. 1-3), and the respective movable guides (23) are moved into a raised position when said circuit is broken or interrupted (Williston, col. 1, lines 13-46). Regarding claim 20, Messerschmidt and Williston teach the elements of claim 17, as stated above. Messerschmidt further teaches (Fig. 1-3): the first pole (3) and second pole (3) are pivotably connected to a main platform (roof 7) and biased upwardly therefrom (Fig. 1), by way of a spring assisted biasing member (cable motors 9 tensioned via springs 5; Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 25-29) or members for the two to operate in tandem (Fig. 1-2). Regarding claim 21, Messerschmidt and Williston teach the elements of claim 19, as stated above. The combination of Messerschmidt and Williston further teaches through Williston: each movable guide (23) comprises two opposing wings (23)(Williston, Fig. 2-3), being positionable on opposite sides of a wire (17)(Fig. 1-3) and operated by electrical current flow within the head assembly (Williston, col. 3, lines 11-38). Regarding claim 27, Messerschmidt and Williston teach the elements of claim 17, as stated above. Messerschmidt further teaches (Fig. 1-3): The boom apparatus is retrofittable to an electric or hybrid vehicle (the boom can be retrofitted onto the roof of electric or hybrid vehicles). Regarding claim 28, the combination of Messerschmidt and Williston teaches: A twin boom head assembly for a boom apparatus of an electric or hybrid vehicle (Messerschmidt, Fig. 1-2), comprising: a housing (28) attachable to a connecting pole of, or attached to, the electric or hybrid vehicle (Williston, Fig. 1-3); a collector configured to abut an electrical wire of an overhead line system to thereby form an electrical circuit via the positive and negative electrical wires (it is known for trolleybuses to have separate overhead wires, one carrying positive voltage and the other negative return, forming a complete circuit) when the respective collectors are in engagement with the overhead power line system (Messerschmidt, Claim 3; Fig. 2); a movable guide (guide arms 23 of Williston) positioned adjacent the collector (25), configured to aid in the alignment of the collectors with respective electrical wires (17)(Williston, Fig. 1-3); and an actuator (reversible motor 70 and push rods 21 of Williston) for moving said movable guides relative to the housing (28) when said electrical circuit is formed (Williston, 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 Messerschmidt to add movable guides movable relative to a housing, to both the first and second boom heads, and have the guides actuated by an actuator, as disclosed by Williston, with a reasonable expectation of success because the automatically actuated guides would ensure reliable electrical power transfer, minimize wear and tear, and prevent damage to the equipment. Regarding claim 29, the combination of Messerschmidt and Williston teaches the twin boom head assembly in accordance with claim 28, and further teaches through Messerschmidt: a forward platform and interconnected rear platform is mountable to a roof of the electric or hybrid vehicle (see annotated Fig. 1 below); and the first connecting pole (3) and second connecting pole (3) are pivotably attachable to the forward platform, and reversibly couplable to the rear platform (see annotated Fig. 1 below). Regarding claim 30, the combination of Messerschmidt and Williston teaches the twin boom head assembly in accordance with claim 29, and further teaches through Messerschmidt: stowage units (locking device 8) mounted to the rear platform (annotated Fig. 1 below) and being configured to hold respective booms when in the stowed position following simultaneous boom disconnection from the positive and negative wires of the overhead power line system (col. 4, lines 39-46; Fig. 1). Regarding the instant claimed steps of method claim 32, note that the operation of the prior structure inherently requires the method steps as claimed (see rejection of claim 28 above). PNG media_image1.png 378 647 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 588 546 media_image2.png Greyscale Allowable Subject Matter Claims 22-26 and 31 are 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 the opposing wings are generally elongate and movable between a lowered position wherein a longitudinal axis of the opposing wings are positioned generally vertically such that the opposing wings are substantially below a corresponding collector. While The combination of Messerschmidt and Williston further teaches through Williston: the two opposing wings (23) are positioned on either side of the collector (25)(Fig. 2-3), the opposing wings (23) being generally elongate, and a raised position (shown up dotted lines in Fig. 3), wherein the opposing wings extend upwardly, and spaced apart from sides of the corresponding collector (25)(Fig. 3), such that the opposing wings (23) provide guidance for alignment of the respective collector (25) with the wire (17), the examiner finds no obvious reason to modify the combination such that the a longitudinal axis of the opposing wings are positioned generally vertically such that the opposing wings are substantially below a corresponding collector. Such a modification would require improper hindsight reasoning and modifications to a modifying reference. Regarding claim 23 and its depending claim(s) 24-26, the prior art fails to teach that each actuator includes an actuator body, actuator shaft and a rack gear, the rack gear being engageable with the actuator shaft being in communication with a respective movable guide wherein the booms would be deployed to connect to the wires of the overhead power line system simultaneously in order to complete the electrical circuit to power the rotation of the pole head wing actuators. While the combination of Messerschmidt and Williston further teaches through Williston: each actuator (21, 70) of the opposing wings (23) includes an actuator body (motor 70) and an actuator shaft (push rods 21)(Williston, Fig. 3), the examiner finds no obvious reason to modify the combination such that the actuator mechanism has a rack gear engageable with the actuator shaft being in communication with a respective movable guide wherein the booms would be deployed to connect to the wires of the overhead power line system simultaneously. Such a modification would require improper hindsight reasoning and modifications to a modifying reference. Regarding claim 31, the prior art fails to teach wherein the stowage units each comprise a twin cam mechanism that is biased open by a biasing member or members, such that when the boom bears against parts of the twin cam mechanism it is caused to move against the bias of biasing member/s such that it captures the boom therebetween, and a locking device is configured to hold the twin cam mechanism against the bias of the biasing member/s to thereby retain the boom in the stowed position, wherein the twin connecting poles are configured to disconnected simultaneously. While the combination of Messerschmidt and Williston teaches the twin boom head assembly in accordance with claim 30, and further teaches through Messerschmidt: stowage units (locking device 8) mounted to the rear platform (annotated Fig. 1 below) and being configured to hold respective booms when in the stowed position (col. 4, lines 39-46; Fig. 1), the examiner finds no obvious reason to modify Messerschmidt such that the stowage units each comprise a twin cam retaining mechanism biased by biasing members wherein where twin connecting poles are employed, they would be disconnected simultaneously. Such a modification would require improper hindsight reasoning. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure of a boom head assembly for an electric vehicle with guides: US-0807653-A, US-1341284-A, US-4357501-A, US-9988835-B2, US-10836430-B2, GB-2475703-A, DE-102015014486-A1, DE-102016009894-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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 01, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection (signed) — §103
Feb 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12637116
BOGIE FOR A RAILWAY VEHICLE WITH ROLL STABILISER
3y 7m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12630200
COMPOSITE INSULATED BOXCAR FLOOR
2y 8m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12624505
GUIDE TUBE AND HYPERLOOP DEVICE INCLUDING SAME
3y 5m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12627175
Contactless Power Feeding Facility
2y 7m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12611891
COMPOSITE POWER WHEEL PAIR, TRAIN, WHEEL RAIL SYSTEM, AND TRAIN CONTROL METHOD
3y 3m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+14.4%)
3y 0m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 310 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month