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 01/11/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
List of References
Reference 1 – CN 1 486 888 A (published 03-Feb-2004): “The trackless trolley car two-wire powering-type collector bow that has the spring damping tube.” Key numerals: 20 (isolating carrier), 22 (first conducting pole), 24 (second conducting pole), 30 (insulating pole separator), 44 (lower-edge downward protrusion), 46 (mid-portion downward protrusion), 26 (third conducting pole/chassis), 40/45 (insulating mounting element/bracket), 12 (insulating rods with arc-shaped profile).
Reference 2 – CN 1 045 90030 A (published 20-May-2015): “Bus pillar of power-locomotive top and pantograph pillar porcelain insulator.” Key numerals: multilayer umbrella skirts (non-circular, streamline, arc-contoured insulating ribs).
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) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim 1
1. A pole separating arrangement for a multipole arrangement for charging an electric vehicle, the pole separating arrangement comprising: a first conducting pole arranged on an isolating carrier and configured for contacting a corresponding first pole on the electric vehicle; a second conducting pole arranged on the isolating carrier and configured for contacting a corresponding second pole on the electric vehicle; and an isolating pole separator arranged between the first conducting pole and the second conducting pole; wherein the pole separator has a plurality of upward pointing arcs, wherein a downward pointing arc is arranged between each two adjacent upward pointing arcs.
Analysis
Reference 1 teaches a two-wire powering type collector bow for a trackless trolley car, i.e., a multipole current-collection/charging arrangement for an electric vehicle. Reference 1 discloses first and second conducting poles in the form of the two halved conductive bodies of bow top conduction slide plate 10, which are separated from one another and configured to contact corresponding first and second conductors of the vehicle charging/contact system. Reference 1 further discloses that the halved conductive bodies 10 are supported on an electrically insulating support arrangement including bench insulator 11, thereby teaching first and second conducting poles arranged on an isolating carrier. Reference 1 also discloses an isolating separator between the two conductive bodies in the form of insulation rods 12 positioned at the partition place between the two halved conductive bodies 10, thereby teaching an isolating pole separator arranged between the first conducting pole and the second conducting pole.
Reference 1 further teaches that the cross section/profile at the partition defined by insulation rods 12 is circular and arc-shaped, and that this structure improves insulation performance in wet weather. Thus, Reference 1 teaches the use of an arc-shaped insulating separator profile between adjacent conductive poles for improving electrical isolation and reducing wet-weather creepage.
Reference 1, however, does not expressly teach that the pole separator has a plurality of upward pointing arcs, nor does Reference 1 expressly teach that a downward pointing arc is arranged between each two adjacent upward pointing arcs.
Reference 2 teaches an electrical insulator structure having a multilayer full skirt / multiple successive umbrella-skirt structure formed on a continuous insulator body. Reference 2 explains that the successive insulating skirt structure is used to improve creepage distance, promote runoff of water, reduce contamination accumulation, and prevent flashover under wet or dirty operating conditions. The successive skirt profile of Reference 2 teaches a separator/insulator contour having multiple upward projections or crests. In the continuous profile of such a multiple-skirt insulator body, the portion between each adjacent pair of upward skirt crests is a lower reentrant trough or valley. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, those successive crests correspond to the claimed plurality of upward pointing arcs, and the intervening trough/valley portions between adjacent crests correspond to the claimed downward pointing arc arranged between each two adjacent upward pointing arcs.
To the extent applicant argues that Reference 2 only discloses certain exemplary cross-sectional shapes such as ellipse, drop, egg type, or heart type, such argument is not persuasive because the rejection relies on the broader disclosure of the multiple successive umbrella-skirt structure of Reference 2 as a whole, rather than limiting Reference 2 to one preferred example. A prior art reference is not restricted to only its expressly preferred embodiment where the broader disclosure teaches the relevant structure.
Motivation to Combine
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the insulating separator arrangement of Reference 1 using the multiple successive skirt contour taught by Reference 2 so that the separator on the insulating support/carrying structure includes multiple upward arc portions with intervening downward arc portions. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because both references are directed to the same general problem of improving insulation performance in electrically exposed vehicle current-collection equipment, particularly by lengthening creepage path and improving water runoff behavior to reduce flashover and conductive leakage in wet or contaminated conditions. Incorporating the known multi-crest insulating contour of Reference 2 into the separator arrangement of Reference 1 would have been a predictable use of a known insulation-improving geometry for the same purpose expressly identified in the references, namely improved electrical separation and improved resistance to wet-weather creepage/flashover. Such a modification would have yielded no more than the predictable result of increasing surface path length and promoting drainage between adjacent conductive poles.
Further, to the extent Reference 1 is viewed as not expressly showing the separator “on” the isolating carrier, Reference 2 teaches forming the successive insulating skirt contour directly on the insulator body itself. Thus, Reference 2 additionally suggests arranging the separator contour on the insulating carrier/support structure rather than as a separate isolated feature. It would therefore have been obvious to configure the separator of Reference 1 on the insulating carrier in the modified arrangement.
Accordingly, the combination of Reference 1 and Reference 2 teaches or at least renders obvious every limitation of claim 1, including the limitation that the pole separator has a plurality of upward pointing arcs and that a downward pointing arc is arranged between each two adjacent upward pointing arcs. Therefore, claim 1 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim 2
2. The pole separating arrangement of claim 1, wherein the upward pointing arc is formed as one of a triangle, a rectangle, a segment of a circle, a sine, or a sinusoidal curve.
Analysis
Ref. 2 expressly depicts umbrella ribs that take the form of partial circles (segments of circles) and smooth sinusoidal-like contours (stream-line shapes, Fig. 2); such shapes fall squarely within the enumerated alternatives. The choice among equivalent arc contours to further improve runoff or manufacturability is an obvious design decision.
Motivation
Ref. 2 teaches that varying skirt geometry “improves self-cleaning and electric strength.” Selecting any of the listed geometric alternatives in claim 2 involves routine engineering trade-offs with predictable results. Claim 2 is therefore obvious for the reasons above.
Claim 3
3. The pole separating arrangement of claim 1, wherein the pole separator further includes a plurality of upward pointing arcs.
Analysis
Ref. 2 discloses multiple successive umbrella skirts (plural upward-projecting arcs) stacked along the porcelain body. Incorporating a plurality of arcs into the separator 30/12 of Ref. 1, as taught by Ref. 2, merely repeats the same feature to further lengthen creepage, an expressly stated goal in both references.
Motivation
Ref. 2 teaches that “multilayer” skirts give better resistance; the artisan would apply that teaching to Ref. 1 in a straightforward way. Claim 3 is obvious.
Claim 4
4. The pole separating arrangement of claim 3, wherein two vertices of the upward pointing arcs have a distance between 1 cm and 10 cm.
Analysis
Ref. 2 specifies skirt spacings sized to obtain creepage distances on the order of centimetres (see description of skirt pitch in preferred dimensions). Placing vertices 1–10 cm apart is well within the customary engineering range for medium-voltage separators and would have been selected by routine optimization.
Motivation
Routine adjustment of a known dimension to a value within a workable range to achieve expected electrical clearance renders the limitation obvious (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454).
Claim 5
5. The pole separating arrangement of claim 1, wherein the isolating pole separator is formed in one piece with the isolating carrier.
Analysis
Ref. 1 already forms separator 30 integrally with carrier 20 (single moulded insulating structure), satisfying the limitation directly. Even if viewed as separate, Ref. 2’s porcelain body in which the skirts are monolithic confirms that one-piece fabrication is conventional and advantageous. Hence claim 5 is obvious.
Motivation
One-piece moulding reduces parts count and moisture paths, a benefit praised in Ref. 2; the artisan would therefore adopt the integral construction.
Claim 6
6. The pole separating arrangement of claim 1, further comprising a third conducting pole arranged above the isolating carrier.
Analysis
Ref. 1 discloses the chassis or frame 26 (“third conducting pole”) positioned above carrier 20, providing the PE/ground return for the collector bow. The feature is identically present.
Motivation
No additional motivation is required; feature is found in Ref. 1.
Claim 7
7. The pole separating arrangement of claim 6, further comprising an isolating mounting element arranged between the third conducting pole and the isolating carrier, the isolating mounting element comprising a bracket configured for mechanically connecting the third conducting pole with the isolating carrier, wherein the bracket comprises a downward pointing protrusion.
Analysis
Ref. 1 depicts isolating mounting element 40 with brackets 45 that connect pole 26 to carrier 20. Each bracket incorporates downward protrusion 44 (Fig. 2b) which diverts moisture—exactly the claimed structure.
Motivation
Feature is expressly taught by Ref. 1.
Claim 8
8. The pole separating arrangement of claim 7, wherein the downward pointing protrusion is arranged horizontally along a lower edge of the bracket.
Analysis
Ref. 1, Fig. 2b, shows protrusion 44 extending along the entire lower edge 49 of bracket 45—meeting the horizontal-edge arrangement.
Claim 9
9. The pole separating arrangement of claim 7, further comprising a further downward pointing protrusion that is arranged horizontally along a mid portion of the bracket.
Analysis
Ref. 1, Fig. 2c, introduces additional protrusion 46 along mid-portion 43 of bracket 45, fulfilling the limitation.
Claim 12
12. The pole separating arrangement of claim 6, wherein the third conducting pole is configured for a connection to a ground contact.
Analysis
Ref. 1 identifies third pole 26 as the ground/PE conductor (“third conducting pole may be connected to protected earth, PE”), satisfying the claim.
Motivation for Claims 6–9 & 12
Where features are taught verbatim in Ref. 1, no further motivation is necessary. To the extent any aspect of the mounting element geometry might be deemed design-choice, Ref. 2 reaffirms that directing moisture away by protrusions is conventional to improve insulation, supplying motivation to replicate the shapes of Ref. 1.
Accordingly, claims 6–9 & 12 are obvious over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2.
35 U.S.C. § 103 REJECTION
(Claims 10 – 11) – Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2 and ordinary skill
Claim 10
10. The pole separating arrangement of claim 7, wherein the downward pointing protrusion has an outer angle of more than 90° and an inner angle of less than 90°.
Analysis
Ref. 1’s protrusion 44 is flared outward (Fig. 2b), plainly showing an obtuse outer angle and acute inner angle. Exact angular values are not dimensioned, but the illustration depicts geometry within the claimed ranges. Alternatively, Ref. 2 teaches that flaring insulator skirts above 90° on the outer side enhances water shedding; selecting specific angles > 90° (outer) and < 90° (inner) constitutes routine optimization.
Motivation
Ref. 2 (umbrella skirt discussion) explains that a flared profile exceeding 90° “promotes runoff toward the tip,” directing the skilled person to adopt such angles in bracket protrusion 44 of Ref. 1. Predictable enhancement of creepage resistance renders the limitation obvious.
Claim 11
11. The pole separating arrangement of claim 9, wherein the further downward pointing protrusion has an outer angle of more than 90° and an inner angle of less than 90°.
Analysis
The argument for claim 10 applies equally to the additional protrusion 46 (Fig. 2c). The same flared geometry is evident or, at minimum, would be adopted for analogous reasons given in Ref. 2.
Motivation
See motivation under claim 10, directly transferable to the second protrusion.
Examiner’s Response to Applicant’s Remarks 10/30/25
The Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered. For the reasons explained below, the arguments are not persuasive, the amendments do not overcome the outstanding rejections, and claims 1–12 remain unpatentable.
I. Response to Amendments and §112(b) Issues
A. Claim 2 – “upward pointing arc”
Applicant amended claim 2 to recite that the “upward pointing arc” is formed as one of a triangle, a rectangle, a segment of a circle, a sine curve, or a sinusoidal curve. Applicant argues that the specification defines “upward pointing arc” broadly, citing ¶¶ [0006] and [0015], and therefore the term is definite.
The amendment has been reviewed. In view of the explicit definitional language in ¶¶ [0006] and [0015], the term “upward pointing arc” in the context of the present application is treated as a coined term whose meaning is expressly set out in the specification. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the term now clearly requires one of the listed geometric forms oriented upward between the poles.
Accordingly, the §112(b) rejection of claim 2 is withdrawn.
B. Claims 10 and 11 – “outer angle” and “inner angle”
Applicant argues that “outer angle” and “inner angle” are well-known geometric terms and cites Fig. 2c to show how a person of ordinary skill would identify such angles on protrusions 44 and 46.
The record has been reconsidered. The terms “outer angle” and “inner angle” do have ordinary geometric meanings (interior and exterior angles formed by a polygonal vertex and an extended adjacent edge). When applied to protrusions 44 and 46 in Fig. 2c, a skilled artisan would be able to determine whether the protrusion presents an outer angle > 90° and an inner angle < 90°.
Accordingly, the §112(b) rejections of claims 10 and 11 are withdrawn.
II. Response to Applicant’s §103 Arguments
Applicant contends that amended claim 1 is allowable because CN 1 486 888 A (“Reference 1”) allegedly fails to disclose “an isolating pole separator arranged on the isolating carrier between the first conducting pole and the second conducting pole.” Applicant asserts that insulating rods 12 of Reference 1 are only “positioned between” conduction slide plates 10, and are not “arranged on” bench insulator 11.
The arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive for the reasons below.
III. Detailed Analysis of Claim 1
Claim 1 recites, in relevant part:
“… a first conducting pole arranged on an isolating carrier … a second conducting pole arranged on the isolating carrier … and an isolating pole separator arranged on the isolating carrier between the first conducting pole and the second conducting pole … wherein the pole separator has at least one upward pointing arc.”
A. Conducting poles arranged on an isolating carrier
Reference 1 discloses that bow top conduction slide plate 10 is split into two halved conductive bodies, each serving as a separate conductor for the two electrical lines used in the trackless trolley system. Reference 1 further discloses that each halved conduction slide plate 10 is mounted to the bow top crossbar via bench insulator 11, which is a dielectric support structure.
Thus, the two conductive halves of the slide plate 10 meet the limitations of “a first conducting pole arranged on an isolating carrier” and “a second conducting pole arranged on the isolating carrier.”
B. Isolating pole separator arranged on the isolating carrier
Applicant argues that insulating rods 12 are not “arranged on” the isolating carrier (bench insulator 11). The Examiner does not agree.
Reference 1 expressly states that insulation rods 12 are positioned at the partition place between the two conductive halves. The rods are a dielectric element, and their cross-sectional profile is described as having a “gradually low arc-shaped transition in high two ends, middle part,” which forms an upward-facing arc. Reference 1 further explains that this arc-shaped structure improves insulation in wet weather by directing water away.
The insulating rods 12 form part of the same assembly as conduction slide plates 10 and bench insulators 11. The rods are mechanically retained within the structure carried by bench insulator 11. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, as used throughout the mechanical and electrical arts, an element is “arranged on” a carrier when it is supported by or mounted within the assembly carried by that carrier, regardless of whether the attachment is direct or via intermediate components.
The claim does not require direct contact, integral formation, or any other restrictive attachment. The applicant’s own specification does not impose such a limitation; ¶[0013] states the separator is “configured for being arranged on an isolating carrier,” which encompasses indirect mounting through the conducting poles.
Accordingly, Reference 1 does disclose an isolating pole separator arranged on the isolating carrier between the first and second conducting poles.
C. Obviousness even if applicant's narrow interpretation is adopted
Even assuming, for argument’s sake, that Reference 1 does not literally disclose the separator “on” the carrier, the modification would have been obvious.
Reference 1 already teaches:
two conductive poles on an insulating support (bench insulator 11)
a dielectric separator (rods 12) located between the poles
an upward-arc profile to improve wet-weather insulation
Reference 2 teaches:
forming upward-projecting insulating skirts integrated into the insulator body
maximizing creepage distance and promoting water run-off by placing such insulating structures directly on the insulator
A person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to incorporate the insulating separator onto the insulator (i.e., onto the isolating carrier) in Reference 1, in order to simplify the assembly, reduce parts, and further improve the creepage path—precisely the improvements taught in Reference 2. Integrating or mounting separator projections directly on the insulating carrier is a routine and predictable design modification.
Therefore, even under applicant’s narrow construction, claim 1 remains obvious over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
IV. Dependent Claims 2–12
Applicant asserts that claims 2–12 are allowable because they depend from an allegedly allowable claim 1. Because claim 1 remains unpatentable, the dependent claims likewise remain unpatentable.
Each dependent claim was previously mapped to the disclosures of References 1 and 2 and remains obvious for the reasons already of record:
Claim 3: plurality of arcs—suggested by Reference 2’s multiple umbrella skirts.
Claim 4: 1–10 cm vertex spacing—routine optimization of known insulating rib spacing.
Claim 5: one-piece separator with carrier—taught by Reference 2’s integral insulator structure.
Claims 6–9 & 12: third conducting pole, mounting element, brackets 45, protrusions 44/46, and ground connection—all explicitly disclosed in Reference 1.
Claims 10–11: angular geometry of protrusions—specific selection of flared angles taught or suggested by Reference 1 and motivated by Reference 2.
Applicant has not presented separate arguments for the dependent claims; thus, the §103 rejections of claims 2–12 are maintained.
Examiner’s Response to Applicant’s Remarks 01/21/2026
Applicant’s arguments filed January 21, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant amended claim 1 to recite, in relevant part, that “the pole separator has a plurality of upward pointing arcs, wherein a downward pointing arc is arranged between each two adjacent upward pointing arcs,” amended claim 2 to recite “each of the plurality,” amended claim 4 to correct dependency, and canceled claim 3. Applicant argues that Ref. 2 may at most disclose the claimed “upward pointing arcs,” but fails to disclose or suggest “a downward pointing arc … between each two adjacent upward pointing arcs.”
The argument is not persuasive.
Claims are examined under their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and from the viewpoint of one of ordinary skill in the art. All claim limitations must be considered, but the Office is also permitted to rely on the reasonable inferences that a skilled artisan would draw from the disclosed structure, not only on verbatim terminology appearing in the reference.
Ref. 1 teaches the claimed pole-separating context, including two conductive bodies separated by an insulating structure on an insulating support in a vehicle current-collection arrangement. Ref. 2 teaches a continuous insulator body having a plurality of successive umbrella-skirt projections for improving creepage path and resistance to flashover in wet/dirty service. The rejection relies on Ref. 2’s teaching of that multi-skirt insulating profile, not merely on isolated examples that the cross-section may be ellipse-, drop-, egg-, or heart-shaped. Exemplary or preferred shapes in a reference do not limit the broader disclosure relied upon.
When Ref. 2’s disclosure is considered as a whole, each successive umbrella skirt constitutes an upward projection, and the intervening portion of the same continuous insulator body between adjacent skirt projections necessarily forms a lower reentrant trough or valley. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, that intervening trough reads on the claimed “downward pointing arc … arranged between each two adjacent upward pointing arcs.” A reference need not expressly label that intervening portion a “downward pointing arc” where the geometry of the disclosed structure would have been so understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to modify the insulating separator arrangement of Ref. 1 using the successive skirt geometry taught by Ref. 2 because both references address the same known problem of improving electrical insulation and reducing creepage/flashover in exposed current-collection hardware. Applying Ref. 2’s known contour to Ref. 1’s separator would have predictably increased surface leakage path and improved water runoff behavior while preserving the insulating function of the separator. The motivation to combine may be implicit from the nature of the problem addressed, and a predictable variation of known elements remains obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Accordingly, amended claim 1 remains unpatentable over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2.
Applicant does not separately argue amended claim 2 on the merits apart from its dependency from claim 1. In any event, Ref. 1’s arc-shaped/circular separator profile and Ref. 2’s curved multi-skirt insulator profile would have suggested at least the recited segment-of-a-circle / curved-arc forms. Claim 2 therefore remains unpatentable for substantially the reasons previously stated.
Applicant does not separately argue amended claim 4 on the merits. Correcting the dependency from canceled claim 3 to claim 1 does not alter the prior art analysis. The recited spacing remains a routine dimensional optimization of a known insulating crest profile.
Claims 5–12 were not separately argued on the new record, except by dependency from claim 1. Because claim 1 remains unpatentable, and because the previously stated mappings for claims 5–12 are unchanged, the rejection of claims 5–12 is maintained.
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, Joseph Morano can be reached at (571) 272-6684. 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
Prosecution Insights