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 statements (IDS) submitted on 08/28/23, 09/19/24, and 01/26/26 are 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 9, 12, and 13 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.
ISSUE: TERM OF DEGREE — “MORE FLEXIBLE”
Claim 9 recites, “the composition of the fixating mass in the upper portion is more flexible than the composition of the fixating mass in the lower portion.”
Claim 13 recites, “the second composition is more flexible than the first composition.”
The phrase “more flexible” is a term of degree that renders the scope of the claims unclear because the claims do not provide an objective baseline or standard for determining whether a given upper portion (or second composition) is “more flexible” than a lower portion (or first composition), and the specification, as provided, does not set forth a quantifiable test, metric, or condition (e.g., elastic modulus, flexural modulus, stiffness, Shore hardness, ASTM/ISO test method, temperature and loading conditions) by which “flexible” is to be measured and compared. As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised with reasonable certainty of the scope of “more flexible” as claimed.
This is particularly relevant in roadway/bituminous materials where “flexibility” may vary significantly with temperature, composition, curing/aging, aggregate content (if any), and loading rate, such that the comparison can change depending on measurement conditions not recited in the claims.
ISSUE: AMBIGUOUS METHOD LIMITATION LANGUAGE — “FILLING A LOWER PORTION FILLING A SPACE …” / “FILLING AN UPPER PORTION FILLING A SPACE …”
Claim 12 recites, in relevant part:
“filling a lower portion filling a space between the bottom plate of the housing and the bottom of the groove … with fixating mass of a first composition,” and
“filling an upper portion filling a space between the respective opposing side wall of the housing and a respective side wall of the groove with fixating mass of a second composition,”
followed by “wherein the upper portion is arranged above the lower portion …”
As written, claim 12 is ambiguous as to what “lower portion” and “upper portion” are portions of (e.g., portions of the fixating mass, portions of the space, portions of the groove, or portions of the filled region). The phrase “filling a lower portion filling a space” is syntactically unclear and reasonably susceptible to differing interpretations (e.g., (i) filling a portion of the space to form a lower portion of fixating mass, versus (ii) filling a “lower portion” (itself) that “fills a space,” which conflates the region being filled with the material that fills it). Because the metes and bounds of the method step are unclear, the scope of claim 12 (and thus claim 13 which depends therefrom) is not set forth with reasonable certainty.
LIST OF REFERENCES USED
Reference 1 (“Asplund”): US 8,763,774 B2, SYSTEM ADAPTED FOR ONE OR MORE ELECTRICALLY PROPELLABLE VEHICLES (RAIL STRUCTURE).
Reference 2 (“Andre”): US 5,960,717 A, ELECTRICAL POWER SUPPLY AND GUIDANCE ASSEMBLY ALONG A GROUND RAIL FOR A WHEELED VEHICLE.
Reference 3 (“Berman”): US 4,129,203 A, ROADWAY VEHICLE.
Reference 4 (“EP ’921 clamp”): EP 3 253 921 B1, A RAIL CLAMP.
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.
Claims 1–3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asplund (Reference 1) in view of Berman (Reference 3) and further in view of Andre (Reference 2).
Claims 4–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asplund (Reference 1) in view of Andre (Reference 2) and further in view of EP ’921 clamp (Reference 4) and further in view of Berman (Reference 3).
Claims 11–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination applied to claims 4–10 (Asplund in view of Andre and further in view of EP ’921 clamp and further in view of Berman), and in further view of general roadway installation practice for liquified bituminous/asphaltic fill as OFFICIAL NOTICE.
──────────────────── CLAIM 1 (REJ: References 1 + 3 + 2)
A housing for a sunken electric road track configured to conductively provide electric power to a vehicle, the housing comprising: a bottom plate extending in a longitudinal direction, opposing side walls protruding from the bottom plate and extending in the longitudinal direction, opposing lateral flanges extending in the longitudinal direction forming lateral protrusions for providing anchoring of the housing in a fixating mass used for fixating the housing in a groove of a roadway, wherein the respective opposing flange protrude from a bottom portion of the respective opposing side wall, the bottom portion of each opposing side wall is the portion thereof that is adjacent and connecting to the bottom plate.
CLAIM 1 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS
A. “A housing for a sunken electric road track configured to conductively provide electric power to a vehicle” Asplund teaches a rail structure used in/along a roadway to supply electrical power from conductors to a vehicle via a current collector. Asplund describes “elongated tracks positioned below the roadway” and conductors “supplied with current and put under voltage,” for electrically driving a vehicle along a roadway. Andre similarly teaches a ground rail incorporated into a roadway for supplying electric power to a wheeled vehicle. Therefore, the combined teachings evidence a housing/rail structure for a sunken (in-road) conductive power supply track.
B. “a bottom plate extending in a longitudinal direction” Asplund’s rail structure includes a metal surrounding portion (78) shaped as a “U” enclosing insulating structure and conductors; the “U” shape necessarily includes a base portion extending along the rail/track length (longitudinal direction). Asplund shows the rail structure (70″) extending along the roadway with conductors (4a, 4b) running longitudinally in tracks (51, 52) within the surrounding portion (78). C. “opposing side walls protruding from the bottom plate and extending in the longitudinal direction” Asplund’s metal surrounding portion (78) encloses the insulating elements and forms external wall sections in a U-shaped configuration, which necessarily includes opposing side wall portions extending longitudinally with the rail/track. Berman’s slotted conduit/channel arrangement (as referenced by Asplund in describing known slotted-conduit configurations) includes a channel (18) with opposing wall portions supporting a cover plate (20) over a slit (12).
D. “opposing lateral flanges extending in the longitudinal direction forming lateral protrusions for providing anchoring of the housing in a fixating mass used for fixating the housing in a groove of a roadway” Andre teaches a rail incorporated into the roadway (i.e., arranged in/within the road body), implying that the rail structure is retained against uplift/lateral movement by structural engagement with surrounding road material. Berman teaches a slotted conduit/channel arrangement intended for embedding in/installation along a roadway environment (roadway vehicle power collection via a slotted conduit). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of Andre’s in-road rail and Berman’s slotted conduit housing, to provide longitudinally extending lateral flanges on the housing/channel to improve mechanical keying/anchoring into the surrounding fixating mass (e.g., asphalt/concrete/grout) within the roadway groove, thereby resisting pull-out, flotation during pouring, and long-term loosening under traffic vibration and thermal cycling.
E. “wherein the respective opposing flange protrude from a bottom portion of the respective opposing side wall … adjacent and connecting to the bottom plate” This placement is a predictable engineering variation: locating anchoring flanges near the bottom region of the side wall increases moment resistance and improves load transfer into the fixating mass without obstructing the top opening/slot region needed for current collection and/or service access (as in Asplund/Berman/Andre roadway-embedded power rails). The bottom-proximate position also reduces exposure of the flange to surface wear and debris.
CLAIM 1 – MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (SPECIFIC) The combination of Asplund (in-road energized conductors in grooves/tracks), Andre (ground rail incorporated into roadway supplying power), and Berman (slotted conduit/channel architecture) would have motivated a skilled artisan to adopt bottom-region anchoring flanges on the housing as a straightforward retention enhancement that improves installation robustness and long-term stability in a roadway groove, while preserving the top opening/collector interface. KSR supports combining known roadway-embedded rail/channel structures with known anchoring features to yield predictable improvements in retention and durability.
──────────────────── CLAIM 2 (REJ: References 1 + 3 + 2) 2. The housing according to claim 1, wherein the opposing side walls each comprises a lateral step extending in the longitudinal direction, such that an upper portion of the respective side wall is outwardly displaced in the lateral direction in relation to a bottom portion of the respective side wall.
CLAIM 2 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS
A. “opposing side walls each comprises a lateral step … such that an upper portion … is outwardly displaced … relative to a bottom portion” Asplund teaches a rail structure having multiple internal layers (electric insulation 71′, 72′; thermal insulation 71″, 72″) positioned between metal walls and conductors (4a, 4b) within tracks (51, 52). Such multi-layered track geometries commonly employ ledges/shoulders/steps to support covers/insulation/conductor placement. Berman teaches (via slotted conduit arrangements) a channel (18) with a cover plate (20) removably attached to upper and opposing wall portions of the channel, which implies support surfaces/shoulders/steps for seating the cover plate and maintaining the slit (12). Therefore, providing a longitudinal lateral step on each side wall to create an outwardly displaced upper wall portion would have been an obvious adaptation to: (i) form a seating/stop surface for a cover or internal insert; (ii) create clearance for internal conductor/contact structures; and (iii) increase structural stiffness of the upper wall region against traffic loads.
CLAIM 2 – MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (SPECIFIC) In roadway-embedded power rail housings, stepped side walls are a common, predictable geometric feature to support covers, locate internal conductor modules, and provide additional section modulus where surface loads are highest. It would have been obvious to incorporate such steps into the Asplund/Berman/Andre housing to achieve predictable benefits of improved component seating and structural strength.
──────────────────── CLAIM 3 (REJ: References 1 + 3 + 2) 3. The housing according to claim 2, wherein the respective opposing lateral flange protrude laterally past the respective upper portion of the opposing side walls.
CLAIM 3 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS
A. “respective opposing lateral flange protrude laterally past the respective upper portion” Given claim 1’s anchoring flanges and claim 2’s outwardly displaced upper wall portion (step), configuring the flange to protrude laterally beyond the upper portion is an obvious dimensional/placement optimization to increase undercut/lock within the surrounding fixating mass and to increase resistance to lateral displacement and uplift. This is a predictable variation of anchoring flange geometry in embedded channels/rails (Andre roadway incorporation; Berman conduit channel embedding), and would not alter the fundamental conductive rail function described by Asplund.
CLAIM 3 – MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (SPECIFIC) A skilled artisan would have been motivated to extend the anchoring flange laterally beyond the outwardly displaced upper wall region to maximize mechanical keying and retention in the surrounding road fixating mass, particularly under shear and cyclic loading, yielding predictable improvements in anchoring strength without impacting collector access at the top opening/slot.
──────────────────── CLAIM 4 (REJ: References 1 + 2 + 4 + 3) 4. A sunken electric road track configured to conductively provide electric power to a vehicle, the sunken electric road track comprising: a housing according to claim 1 extending along the sunken electric road track and being configured to be arranged in a groove formed in a roadway, a contact line structure extending along the housing, via which power collectors of the vehicle is configured to conductively draw electric power from the sunken electric road track, the contact line structure being arranged inside the housing, a plurality of clamps configured to clamp the contact line structure to the housing for forming a plurality of friction joints between the housing and the contact line structure.
CLAIM 4 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS
A. “A sunken electric road track … conductively provide electric power to a vehicle” Asplund teaches a roadway-based rail structure supplying conductive electrical power to a vehicle via current collectors contacting conductors in roadway grooves/tracks. Andre teaches ground-rail power supply along a ground rail for a wheeled vehicle.
B. “a housing according to claim 1 extending along the sunken electric road track and … arranged in a groove formed in a roadway” Asplund teaches elongated tracks/grooves positioned below the roadway, extending along roadway sections, with a rail structure (e.g., 70″) extending longitudinally. Berman teaches a channel (18) configured with a cover plate (20) and slit (12) for in-road current collection arrangements; such structures are installed in/along roadway grooves/slots.
C. “a contact line structure extending along the housing … arranged inside the housing … via which power collectors … draw electric power” Asplund teaches conductors (4a, 4b) extending along tracks (51, 52) within the surrounding portion (78), and a current collector (4) interacting with conductor surfaces (e.g., 4b′), thereby providing conductive power transfer. Thus, Asplund’s conductors (4a, 4b) within tracks (51, 52) inside the surrounding portion (78) correspond to a contact line structure arranged inside a housing and extending along it.
D. “a plurality of clamps … clamp the contact line structure to the housing … forming … friction joints between the housing and the contact line structure” EP ’921 clamp teaches a clamp for holding rails using clamp elements (30a, 30b) securable together in a clamping arrangement about a railway rail (10), i.e., a frictional clamping joint. It would have been obvious to apply frictional clamping (as taught by EP ’921 clamp) to secure the contact line structure (Asplund conductors 4a, 4b / conductor assembly) within the housing (surrounding portion 78 / channel housing) using multiple clamps spaced along the length, forming multiple friction joints, because: (1) friction clamps provide retention without requiring continuous rigid bonding; (2) friction clamps can permit controlled longitudinal slip to accommodate differential thermal expansion between a conductor assembly and a supporting housing (a known concern in long conductive rails); and (3) the use of multiple clamps distributed longitudinally is a predictable way to achieve uniform retention and serviceability.
CLAIM 4 – MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (SPECIFIC) A skilled artisan would have been motivated to use distributed friction clamps (EP ’921 clamp elements 30a/30b clamping about rail 10) to secure the Asplund in-road conductor/contact structure within a housing while permitting controlled movement from thermal expansion and simplifying replacement/maintenance, yielding predictable retention and service benefits in an in-road electrified track environment (Asplund/Andre/Berman).
──────────────────── CLAIM 5 (REJ: References 1 + 2 + 4 + 3) 5. The sunken electric road track according to claim 4, comprising a plurality of housings arranged one after the other along the longitudinal direction of the sunken electric road track, further comprising drainage piping arranged below the bottom plates of the plurality of housings, the drainage piping comprising inlets arranged at joints between the plurality of housings.
CLAIM 5 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS
A. “plurality of housings arranged one after the other along the longitudinal direction” Asplund teaches roadway sections/portions along the roadway and track structures extending along successive roadway sections; such systems are implemented as successive track modules/sections along a length of roadway. Andre teaches a ground rail extending along a travel path; such rails are formed from successive segments in practice.
B. “drainage piping arranged below the bottom plates … drainage piping comprising inlets arranged at joints between the plurality of housings” Asplund identifies that rails/bars can be provided with side-positioned drainage tracks, recognizing drainage management as a known need for in-road conductive rail systems. It would have been obvious to implement drainage as piping placed below the housing bottom (as a design choice) with inlets at module joints, because joints are predictable low points/gaps where water accumulates and where ingress is most likely; routing collected water away via a below-grade pipe is a predictable drainage solution for trenches/grooves in pavements.
CLAIM 5 – MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (SPECIFIC) Because Asplund recognizes drainage in roadway-embedded electrified tracks (drainage tracks adjacent rails), a skilled artisan would have been motivated to enhance drainage robustness by providing a dedicated drainage pipe below the housing bottoms with inlets at housing joints—those joints being natural ingress/collection points—thereby predictably reducing standing water, corrosion risk, and electrical leakage/fault conditions.
──────────────────── CLAIM 6 (REJ: References 1 + 2 + 4 + 3) 6. The sunken electric road track according to claim 4, further comprising a fixating mass filling a space between the housing and the groove formed in the roadway such that the housing is fixedly arranged in the groove.
CLAIM 6 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS
A. “fixating mass filling a space between the housing and the groove … fixedly arranged in the groove” Andre teaches a ground rail incorporated into the roadway, implying the rail is fixed/retained by surrounding roadway material or fill. Berman’s slotted conduit/channel system is likewise a roadway-installed structure, which would be set/retained in a groove/trench, typically via surrounding fill or grout. Therefore, it would have been obvious to fill the annular space between a prefabricated housing and a cut roadway groove with a fixating mass (e.g., asphaltic, cementitious, polymer concrete), to immobilize the housing and restore roadway integrity—this is a predictable installation technique for embedding elongate channel structures in pavement.
CLAIM 6 – MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (SPECIFIC) A skilled artisan would have been motivated to use a fixating mass around an embedded electrified housing to achieve predictable fixation against traffic loads, vibration, and environmental cycling and to re-establish a continuous pavement structure around the groove-installed rail housing (Andre/Berman roadway incorporation).
──────────────────── CLAIM 7 (REJ: References 1 + 2 + 4 + 3) 7. The sunken electric road track according to claim 6, wherein the fixating mass comprises a lower portion filling a space between the bottom plate of the housing and a bottom of the groove and surrounding the opposing lateral flanges of the housing, an upper portion filling a space between the respective opposing side wall of the housing and a respective side wall of the groove, wherein the upper portion is arranged above the lower portion.
CLAIM 7 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS
A. “fixating mass comprises a lower portion … surrounding … flanges” From claim 6, a fixating mass around the embedded housing is obvious for fixation. Providing a “lower portion” beneath the bottom plate and around the lower-region anchoring flanges is an inherent geometric consequence of pouring or packing fixating mass into a groove around a flanged housing: the mass occupies the space under and around the flanges to mechanically lock the housing.
B. “an upper portion … between side wall of housing and side wall of groove … above the lower portion” Likewise, the fixating mass will necessarily also occupy the lateral side gaps between housing side walls and the cut groove side walls. Dividing the fill into “lower” and “upper” portions corresponds to staged filling or layered fill practices in roadway repair/installation where different regions are filled/sealed to different depths.
CLAIM 7 – MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (SPECIFIC) Layering the fill into a lower structural portion around anchoring features and an upper portion near the surface is a predictable and common installation approach to separately optimize structural retention (lower) and surface sealing/finish (upper), which is particularly motivated in in-road electrified tracks to mitigate loosening and water ingress.
──────────────────── CLAIM 8 (REJ: References 1 + 2 + 4 + 3) 8. The sunken electric road track according to claim 7, wherein a composition of the fixating mass in the upper portion is different from a composition of the fixating mass in the lower portion.
CLAIM 8 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS
A. “composition … upper portion … different from … lower portion” It would have been obvious to select different compositions for different vertical regions of the fill because the functional requirements differ: lower portion: structural support and anchoring strength; upper portion: surface sealing, crack resistance, and accommodation of thermal cycling at/near the roadway surface. Selecting different compositions to meet different functional requirements is an obvious optimization and yields predictable results.
CLAIM 8 – MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (SPECIFIC) A skilled artisan would have been motivated to tailor the surface-adjacent fill region differently from the deeper structural region to predictably improve sealing and durability at the surface while maintaining high anchoring strength at depth, especially for roadway-embedded conductive rail housings exposed to water, debris, and repeated wheel loading.
──────────────────── CLAIM 9 (REJ: References 1 + 2 + 4 + 3) 9. The sunken electric road track according to claim 8, wherein the composition of the fixating mass in the upper portion is more flexible than the composition of the fixating mass in the lower portion.
CLAIM 9 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS
A. “upper portion … more flexible than … lower portion” This is an obvious refinement of claim 8. A more flexible upper composition predictably improves crack-bridging and sealing at the roadway surface and better accommodates differential thermal expansion between embedded housing and surrounding pavement. The lower portion remains more rigid for load transfer and anchoring.
CLAIM 9 – MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (SPECIFIC) A skilled artisan would have been motivated to use a more flexible upper fill to reduce water ingress and surface cracking around the embedded electrified housing while maintaining a stiffer, stronger lower fill for structural anchoring—predictably improving durability and electrical safety by limiting moisture intrusion.
──────────────────── CLAIM 10 (REJ: References 1 + 2 + 4 + 3) 10. The sunken electric road track according to claim 4, further comprising an electrically insulating layer arranged between the housing and the contact line structure.
CLAIM 10 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS
A. “electrically insulating layer arranged between the housing and the contact line structure” Asplund expressly teaches electric insulation (71′, 72′) positioned between the metal surrounding portion (78) (housing-like structure) and the conductors (4a, 4b) in tracks (51, 52). Accordingly, Asplund teaches an insulating layer between the housing and the conductor/contact structure to reduce electrical conduction to the housing.
CLAIM 10 – MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (SPECIFIC) Even if not expressly present in every embodiment of Andre/Berman, incorporating an insulating layer as taught by Asplund is motivated by the predictable safety benefit of reducing unintended current paths into the metal housing and surrounding roadway, thereby improving electrical isolation and fault tolerance in a conductive in-road system.
──────────────────── CLAIM 11 (REJ: References 1 + 2 + 4 + 3) 11. A method for arranging a sunken electric road track along a road, the method comprising: arranging a housing of the sunken electric road track in a groove formed in a roadway of the road, such that a space is formed between a bottom plate of the housing and a bottom of the groove and between opposing side walls of the housing and respective side walls of the groove, and filling the space with a fixating mass by pouring liquified fixating mass into the space.
CLAIM 11 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS
A. “arranging a housing … in a groove formed in a roadway … such that a space is formed …” Asplund teaches track/groove-based roadway electrification structures positioned below the roadway surface. Andre teaches a ground rail incorporated into the roadway. Placing a prefabricated housing/rail structure into a cut groove inherently results in clearance/space to allow positioning tolerances and to receive fill material (claim 6 concept).
B. “filling the space with a fixating mass by pouring liquified fixating mass into the space” It is an obvious installation method to secure an embedded channel/rail housing in a groove by pouring a flowable (liquified) fill material (heated asphalt/bitumen, grout, polymer concrete) around it, because pourable fill provides complete void filling and rapid installation, yielding predictable fixation results.
CLAIM 11 – MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (SPECIFIC) A skilled artisan would have been motivated to use pourable (liquified) fixating mass for the predictable benefits of full void filling, uniform support, and fast roadway reinstatement around a groove-installed electrified housing (Andre/Berman roadway incorporation), especially to minimize installation time and ensure intimate contact between housing and surrounding material.
──────────────────── CLAIM 12 (REJ: References 1 + 2 + 4 + 3) 12. The method according to claim 11, wherein the filling the space with a fixating mass comprises: filling a lower portion filling a space between the bottom plate of the housing and the bottom of the groove and surrounding opposing lateral flanges extending in a longitudinal direction forming lateral protrusions for providing anchoring of the housing with fixating mass of a first composition, and filling an upper portion filling a space between the respective opposing side wall of the housing and a respective side wall of the groove with fixating mass of a second composition, wherein the upper portion is arranged above the lower portion, and wherein the second composition of the fixating mass in the upper portion is different from the first composition of the fixating mass in the lower portion.
CLAIM 12 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS
A. staged filling “lower portion … surrounding … flanges … first composition” Obvious for the same reasons as claims 6–8: deeper region optimized for anchoring/strength around flanges.
B. “filling an upper portion … second composition … different … arranged above” Obvious as a layered fill method to optimize different functional requirements at different depths (structural anchoring vs surface sealing/finish). Layered pouring/placing of different materials is a predictable process variation once different compositions are selected for different regions.
CLAIM 12 – MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (SPECIFIC) A skilled artisan would have been motivated to implement the different-composition upper/lower fill by a staged method because it is the straightforward way to physically realize two different compositions in two different depth zones, with predictable benefits of strong anchoring at depth and tailored surface behavior near the roadway interface.
──────────────────── CLAIM 13 (REJ: References 1 + 2 + 4 + 3) 13. The method according to claim 12, wherein the second composition is more flexible than the first composition.
CLAIM 13 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS
A. “second composition more flexible than first composition” Obvious refinement of claim 12: selecting a more flexible surface-adjacent material predictably improves sealing and crack resistance and accommodates movement at the surface while retaining stronger, stiffer material at depth.
CLAIM 13 – MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (SPECIFIC) A skilled artisan would have been motivated to choose a more flexible upper material to reduce surface cracking and water ingress around the embedded electrified housing, a predictable durability and safety improvement for in-road conductive systems.
──────────────────── CLAIM 14 (REJ: References 1 + 2 + 4 + 3) 14. The method according to claim 11, further comprising: arranging a contact line structure of the sunken electric road track inside the housing, via which contact line structure power collectors of a vehicle are configured to conductively draw electric power from the sunken electric road track; and clamping the contact line structure to the housing using a plurality of clamps for forming a plurality of friction joints between the housing and the contact line structure.
CLAIM 14 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS
A. “arranging a contact line structure … inside the housing … power collectors … conductively draw electric power” Asplund teaches conductors (4a, 4b) arranged within tracks (51, 52) inside the surrounding portion (78), with a current collector (4) interacting with conductor surfaces (e.g., 4b′). Thus, placing the contact line structure inside the housing is taught/obvious from Asplund’s internal conductor arrangement.
B. “clamping … using a plurality of clamps … friction joints” As addressed for claim 4: EP ’921 clamp teaches frictional clamping of rails via clamp elements (30a, 30b) about rail (10). It would have been obvious to implement the apparatus assembly method step of clamping with distributed clamps because the structure’s assembly inherently includes fastening/retention operations; specifying “a plurality” corresponds to repeated clamp placement along the length to secure an elongate member.
CLAIM 14 – MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (SPECIFIC) A skilled artisan would have been motivated to assemble the in-road conductor module by plural friction clamps (EP ’921) to achieve predictable retention and controlled slip for thermal expansion, and because modular in-road installations benefit from serviceable clamp-based attachment rather than permanent bonding (ease of replacement/maintenance).
──────────────────── CLAIM 15 (REJ: References 1 + 2 + 4 + 3) 15. The method according to claim 14, further comprising arranging an electrically insulating layer between the housing and the contact line structure.
CLAIM 15 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS
A. “arranging an electrically insulating layer between the housing and the contact line structure” Asplund teaches electric insulation (71′, 72′) between metal surrounding portion (78) and conductors (4a, 4b). Thus, arranging such an insulating layer is an obvious assembly step corresponding to inclusion of the insulating layers in the rail structure.
CLAIM 15 – MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (SPECIFIC) A skilled artisan would have been motivated to include/arrange the insulating layer during assembly to realize the predictable electrical isolation and safety benefits taught by Asplund, especially in a conductive roadway environment where moisture and contaminants increase leakage risk.
──────────────────── CLAIM 16 (REJ: References 1 + 2 + 4 + 3) 16. The method according to claim 11, further comprising: arranging a plurality of housings one after the other along a longitudinal direction of the sunken electric road track, and arranging drainage piping below the bottom plates of the plurality of housings, the drainage piping comprising inlets arranged at joints between the plurality of housings.
CLAIM 16 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS
A. “arranging a plurality of housings one after the other” Asplund and Andre both contemplate roadway-length electrified rails/sections, which in practice are installed as successive segments/modules.
B. “arranging drainage piping below … inlets at joints” As addressed for claim 5: Asplund recognizes drainage tracks adjacent rails, motivating drainage provisions. Converting this to piping with inlets at joints is an obvious implementation detail for enhanced drainage robustness.
CLAIM 16 – MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (SPECIFIC) A skilled artisan would have been motivated to implement drainage piping during installation of multiple sequential housings because modular joints are predictable ingress/collection points for water, and routing water via below-grade piping provides predictable reduction in standing water and associated electrical/mechanical degradation.
──────────────────── CLAIM 17 (REJ: References 1 + 2 + 4 + 3) 17. The method according to claim 11, wherein the fixating mass is a bituminous fixating mass.
CLAIM 17 – LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS
A. “fixating mass is a bituminous fixating mass” Selecting bituminous/asphaltic material as the fixating mass for a roadway groove is an obvious choice because it is compatible with common road construction materials, can be heated/flowed for pouring (claim 11), and provides predictable adhesion and load distribution upon cooling/compaction.
CLAIM 17 – MOTIVATION TO COMBINE (SPECIFIC) A skilled artisan would have been motivated to choose a bituminous fixating mass for a roadway groove-installed electrified housing because it is a standard roadway-compatible material that predictably restores pavement continuity and provides durable fixation under traffic loading and environmental cycling.
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