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. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. 1. Claims 8 & 17 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. The terms “central rails” and “outer rails” are confusing, as it is unclear whether applicant is referring to the previously recited “non-conducting rails”, “conducting rails” or some additional set of rails. It is believed that applicant is attempting to claim the arrangement disclosed and depicted in figure 3, where central ones of the non-conducting rails terminate upstream of outer ones of the non-conducting rails, so for purposes of applying the prior art these claims will be interpretated as such. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. 2. Claim(s) 1-4, 6- 7, 11-13 and 1 5-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Duffy (US 3152673 A) . Regarding claims 1 and 12, Duffy discloses an electrical conductive system for a free-steering mobile machine, comprising: a conductive rail assembly including a plurality of conducting rails 28/28’ (left side 38/38’ in figure 1) extending generally ( closer than not) parallel to the ground, the plurality of conducting rails 28/28’ configured to provide electricity to the free-steering mobile machine; and an ingress ramp assembly 30 located at one end of the conductive rail assembly . T he ingress ramp assembly includ es a plurality of non-conducting rails 33/33’ detached from the plurality of conducting rails, and extending to a height above the conductive rail assembly (see figure 1, the height of rails 33/33’ extends above and below the height of conductor rails 28/28’ to form a guiding funnel) . Regarding claim 2-3 and 12, the plurality of non-conducting rails 33/33’ provide an ingress ramp assembly width that is greater than a width provided by the plurality of conducting rails over the entire conductive rail assembly and narrows from upstream to downstream to funnel the current collectors 13/13’ into contact with the conducting rails 28/28’ (see figure 3) . Regarding claim s 4 & 13 the ingress ramp assembly includes a central portion including a plurality of non-conducting rails (28/28’ to the right of insulator assemblies 38/38’ extending parallel to one another and in a common plane, and a plurality of outer non-conducting rails 33/33’ located above the common plane. (see figure 1, the height of rails 33/33’ extends above and below the height of the non- conductor rails 28/28’ to form a guiding funnel) . Regarding claims 6-7 and 15-16 , the ingress ramp assembly includes a transition section overlapping the conductive rail assembly and includes a height inflection upstream of the intersection (see figure 1, insulator assemblies form a transition from the non-conductive to conductive rails and include a height portion, top of blocks 39/39’, located above the conductive rails . Regarding claim 11, the conductive rail assembly and ingress ramp assembly are supported above the ground by a plurality of poles 25 and rail brackets 26 (column 2, lines 6-22) . 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. 3. Claim (s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duffy in view of Kohlenberg et al (US 6425469 B1) . The Duffy reference, as described above, shows all of the features claimed except for the non-conducting rails 33/33’ being round. Duffy discloses planar sheets that form an open trapezoid shaped funnel. Kohlenberg teaches t he use of rounded non-conducting guide rails to form a more rounded type of funnel shape (see figure 1), to be well known in the art as an alternative shape for conductive rail entry guides. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Duffy to include t he use of rounded non-conducting guide rails to form a more rounded type of funnel shape , as taught by Kohlenberg , in order to provide a n alternative shaped funnel with smoother transitions between the side and upper sections. 4. Claim(s) 9 and 1 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duffy. The Duffy reference, as described above, shows all of the features claimed except for the height of the rails being between 8-15 feet. The rails of Duffy are elevated, but the degree of elevation is not specified . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Duffy to include the use of the height of the rails being between 8-15 feet , as this would be considered a routine design optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art, the ordinarily skilled artisan choosing a specific height range that optimizes the efficiency of various design variables, such as safety, cost and environmental factors. For example, since the rails are electrified they would have to be at a height at least above what a worker or person would be able to reach for safety reasons, but below the height of tree branches and other environmental factors to ensure the current collectors could properly engage and follow their path. 5. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duffy in view of Szysh (US 4416357 A ). The Duffy reference, as described above, shows all of the features claimed except an egress ramp assembly downstream of the ingress ramp assembly. Szysh teaches the use of an egress ramp assembly that is a mirror image of an ingress ramp assembly (see figure 1), to be well known in the art for conductive rail systems, in order to provide a smooth entry and exit of the current collectors into and out of contact with the main conductive rail section . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Duffy to include the use of an egress ramp assembly that is a mirror image of an ingress ramp assembly, as taught by Szysh , in order to provide a smooth entry and exit for the current collectors into and out of contact with the main conductive rail section. Allowable Subject Matter 6. Claims 8 and 17 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. 7. Claims 19-20 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claims 8 and 17, the prior art fails to disclose or suggest the claimed combination of elements, in particular with a plurality of non-conductive rails where central ones of the non-conductive rails terminate upstream of outer ones of the non-conductive rails. Regarding claims 19-20, the prior art fails to disclose or suggest the combination of claimed steps, in particular with the step of sliding the contactor assembly on a top surface of an ingress ramp assembly up to a height above the conductive rail assembly , and then lowering the contactor assembly onto the conductive rail assembly . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Kent et al reference was discussed as prior art in the background of the specification and is cited to make it of record, while the Hartman et al reference is cited as an example of an ingress ramp assembly for a conductive rail system. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Samuel Joseph Morano whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6684 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday before 3:30 pm Eastern . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT TC Director Joseph Thomas can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8004 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT S. JOSEPH MORANO Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Unit 3615 /S. Joseph Morano/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615