DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-13 and 17-23 are currently pending. Claims 12, 13 and 21-23 are allowed. Claims 1-11 and 17-20 are rejected under new grounds. A response to Applicant’s arguments can be found at the end of this Office action. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, this Office action is final.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9, 10 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2007/045218 A1 (“Bauer”) in view of McMordie (US 4,246,987) and Li et al. (US 2021/0129707 A1).
Referring to Claim 1: Bauer discloses a conducting rail retention system, comprising:
a plurality of conducting rails (7a, 7b); and
a rail support assembly, including:
a support (2)
a support plate (28),
a pair of rail clamps (14, 22) movable relative to one another from a rail unlock position (Fig. 12) to a rail interlock position (Fig. 13) securing the plurality of conducting rails to the support assembly (see attached EPO translation, Para. [0049]).
Bauer does not specifically teach that the support plate is attached to the top end of a support pole with the rail support portion on the top side of the support plate. However, McMordie teaches a mounting assembly for an electrically conductive rail, comprising a support pole (500), the support pole including a top end and a bottom end, and a support plate (25), the support plate being attached to the top end of the support pole (Fig. 4) (Col. 6, lines 11-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Bauer to mount the support plate to the top of a support pole, as taught by McMordie, in order to provide an elevated position for the conducting rails, more easily accessible by elevated vehicles, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Bauer does not specifically teach that the support plate is configured to support the plurality of conducting rails at a common vertical height in a generally horizontal plane, wherein the generally horizontal plane is generally perpendicular to the axis of the support pole. Rather, Bauer teaches conducting rails supported side by side along a vertical plane (Fig. 22). However, Li teaches a three-phase power supply and collection device, wherein the support plate (11) is configured to support the plurality of conducting rails (12, 13, 14) at a common vertical height in a generally horizontal plane (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Bauer to mount the support plate horizontally with the rails at a common vertical height in a generally horizontal plane, as taught by Li, in order to provide even and easily accessible conductor surfaces for the collector device, using gravity to generate contact force (see Li, Para. [0013] and [0026]), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 2: Bauer in view of McMordie, as applied to claim 1, further teaches the rail retention system, wherein the support plate (McMordie, 25) is asymmetric about a central axis (McMordie, Fig. 4).
Referring to Claim 3: Bauer further teaches the rail retention system, wherein the rail clamps (14, 22) are one of a shifting member or a pivoting member (Fig. 12) (Para. [0049]).
Referring to Claim 4: Bauer further teaches the rail retention system, wherein the rail clamps (14, 22) form a C-clamp interlocking the plurality of conducting rails (7a, 7b) (Fig. 12) (Para. [0049]).
Referring to Claim 9: Bauer further teaches the rail retention system, wherein the pair of rail clamps (14, 22) include identical pivoting latches opposed to one another (Fig. 12) (Para. [0049]).
Referring to Claim 10: Bauer further teaches the rail retention system, wherein each conductive rail (7a, 7b) is secured by a pair of the identical pivoting latches (Fig. 12) (Para. [0049]).
Referring to Claim 17: Bauer teaches a conducting rail retention system, comprising:
a rail bracket assembly for connecting a support (2)
a support plate (28) including a rail support portion on a top surface thereof configured to support the plurality of conducting rails side by side (Fig. 22)
a pair of rail clamps (14, 22) movable relative to one another from a rail unlock position (Fig. 12) to a rail interlock position (Fig. 13) (Para. [0049]).
Bauer does not specifically teach that the support plate is attached to the top end of a support pole with the rail support portion on the top side of the support plate. However, McMordie teaches a mounting assembly for an electrically conductive rail, comprising a support pole (500), the support pole including a top end and a bottom end, and a support plate (25), the support plate being attached to the top end of the support pole (Fig. 4) (Col. 6, lines 11-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Bauer to mount the support plate to the top of a support pole, as taught by McMordie, in order to provide an elevated position for the conducting rails, more easily accessible by elevated vehicles, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Bauer does not specifically teach that the support plate is configured to support the plurality of conducting rails side by side at a common vertical height in a generally horizontal plane. Rather, Bauer teaches conducting rails supported side by side along a vertical plane (Fig. 22). However, Li teaches a three-phase power supply and collection device, wherein the support plate (11) is configured to support the plurality of conducting rails (12, 13, 14) at a common vertical height in a generally horizontal plane (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Bauer to mount the support plate horizontally with the rails at a common vertical height in a generally horizontal plane, as taught by Li, in order to provide even and easily accessible conductor surfaces for the collector device, using gravity to generate contact force (see Li, Para. [0013] and [0026]), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 18: Bauer further teaches the rail retention system, wherein a rail clamp of the pair of rail clamps (14, 22) is formed on the support plate (28) (Fig. 12) (Para. [0049]).
The clamping plates 14, 22 of Bauer may be broadly interpreted as “formed” on mounting plate 28 even though they are not integrally formed as a single component.
Referring to Claim 19: Bauer further teaches the rail retention system, wherein the pair of rail clamps (14, 22) are separate members attached to the support plate (28) (Fig. 12) (Para. [0049]).
Referring to Claim 20: Bauer further teaches the rail retention system, wherein the pair of rail clamps (14, 22) are separate, pivoting latches attached to the support plate (28) (Fig. 12) (Para. [0049]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 13 and 21-23 are allowed.
Claims 5-8 and 11 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 claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5 and depending claims 6-8, while Bauer teaches a support plate (28) and a pair of rail clamps (14, 22) in the form of plates being substantially identical and flipped with respect to one another (Fig. 7), Bauer does not teach that support plate (28) includes a second, identical, flipped support plate attached on an opposite side of the support pole, as required in claim 5. Examiner notes that the additional reference Courtenay (US 0,664,470) teaches a support plate (A2) and a pair of rail clamps (E) being identical and flipped with respect to one another, and attached on opposite sides of the rectangular base portion (A’) (Fig. 1). However, Courtenay clamps a singular conducting rail and is not configured to support and clamp a plurality of conducting rails, as recited in claim 1. Thus, Examiner finds that it would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning to modify Bauer in view of Courtenay to meet these limitations, as this would require a substantial redesign of Bauer.
Regarding claim 11, neither McMordie nor Bauer teach that the support pole is coupled to the support plate so that the support pole contacts a conducting rail. Examiner finds that it would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning to modify McMordie or Bauer to meet these limitations.
Regarding amended claim 12 and depending claims 13 and 21-23, while Bauer teaches a support plate (28) and a pair of rail clamps (14, 22) in the form of plates being substantially identical and flipped with respect to one another (Fig. 7), Bauer does not teach that the support plate is a first support plate, and the first support plate includes one of the rail clamps, and the rail support assembly includes a second support plate including the other of the pair of rail clamps. Examiner finds that it would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning to modify Bauer to meet these limitations, where a second support plate would be formed that includes the other of the pair of rail clamps.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Bauer in view of McMordie fails to meet the amended limitations of claims 1 and 17 because the previous rejection citing McMordie in view of Bauer fails to teach conducting rails oriented along a generally horizontal plane perpendicular to the support pole. Examiner agrees and has introduced Li for the teaching of orienting the conducting rails horizontally, as stated in the obviousness rejection above. Examiner notes that while McMordie appears to teach horizontally oriented conductors (Figs. 1-3), the embodiment shown with the support post (500) depicts vertically oriented conductors (Fig. 4). Thus, the additional reference Li has been introduced in the obviousness rejection stated above.
Applicant argues that claim 12 is allowable because the allowable limitations of previous claim 16 have been added. Examiner agrees, and claim 12 is allowed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY L KUHFUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00am to 6:00 pm CDT.
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 on (571)272-6682. 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.
/ZACHARY L KUHFUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615A
Prosecution Insights