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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Within claim 1, line 7: “a urging member” should be “an urging member”.
Within claim 25, line 2: “an dropper cable” should be “a dropper cable”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 22 is 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.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the direction" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommends amending to “a direction” to provide antecedent basis for this limitation.
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, 3-6, 8-13, 17-18, 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrubsall (US 20080047793 A1) in view of Peart (WO 2010012989 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Shrubsall teaches a securing arrangement for a dropper assembly to suspend a dropper cable (1; Fig.6), wherein the securing arrangement comprises a first securing device (first portion, 20; Fig.6) to secure a messenger wire (catenary wire, 6; Fig.6), and the securing arrangement further includes a second securing device (second portion, 4'; Fig.6) to secure the dropper cable (3; Fig.6), wherein each of the first and second securing devices comprises a main part (21 and 12'; Fig.6), a securing member movably mounted on the main part (22 and 15; Fig.6), and the respective one of the messenger wire or the dropper cable is secured by the respective securing member (Fig.6). Shrubsall does not teach wherein an urging member in the form of a spring urges the respective securing member from a release position to a securing position.
However, Peart teaches the use of an urging member in the form of a spring to urge a securing member from a release position to a securing position (24,33; Fig.10 and 19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement of Shrubsall with a spring to urge the securing members to a securing position to ensure the securing arrangement maintains positive contact between the securing members with the secured cables to prevent inadvertent cable movements during system operations with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3: Shrubsall further teaches the securing arrangement of claim 1, wherein the first securing device comprises a gripping device arranged to grip the messenger wire (hook of 21 and 25; Fig.6).
Regarding claim 4: Shrubsall does not teach wherein the gripping device has hooks extending from the main part, wherein the hooks curve in opposite directions from the main part, wherein a gap is defined between the hooks, wherein the messenger wire-is receivable in the gap, and when the gripping device is rotated about the gap the messenger wire is received by both hooks.
However, Peart teaches wherein the gripping device (1; Fig.13) has hooks extending from the main part (12; Fig.13), wherein the hooks curve in opposite directions from the main part (12; Fig.13), wherein a gap is defined between the hooks (13; Fig.13), wherein the messenger wire (6; Fig.13) is receivable in the gap (shown in Fig.13), and when the gripping device is rotated about the gap the messenger wire is received by both hooks (Fig.14 to 15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement of Shrubsall with the opposite directions of hooks as in Peart to provide additional stability and for the gripping device during cable fluctuations with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5: Shrubsall does not teach wherein the securing member of the gripping device comprises a cam lever pivotally mounted on the main part of the gripping device.
However, Peart teaches wherein the securing member of the gripping device comprises a cam lever (15; Fig.10) pivotally mounted on the main part of the gripping device (cam levers mounted with pivot pins 16; Fig.13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement of Shrubsall with the cam levers of Peart since it is obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6: Shrubsall does not teach wherein the cam lever comprises a cam face to engage the messenger wire, and a release member to release the cam face from the messenger wire.
However, Peart teaches wherein the cam lever (15; Fig.10) comprises a cam face (19; Fig.17) to engage the messenger wire (6; Fig.17), and a release member (20; Fig.17) to release the cam face from the messenger wire (6; Fig.17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement of Shrubsall with the cam face as in Peart to provide a stronger grip of the securing member and it is obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8: Shrubsall does not teach wherein the gripping device comprises two of the securing members and two of the springs.
However, Peart teaches wherein the gripping device comprises two of the securing members (15; Fig.10) and two of the springs (24; Fig.10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement of Shrubsall with the two securing members and springs of Peart to provide greater grip force longitudinally on the gripped cable to prevent movement of the securing device during cable fluctuations with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9: Shrubsall does not teach wherein each securing member of the gripping device is to press the messenger wire against a different hook of the gripping device.
However, Peart teaches wherein each securing member of the gripping device is to press the messenger wire against a different hook of the gripping device (apparent from Fig.17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement of Shrubsall with the separate securing members and hooks of Peart to provide greater grip force longitudinally on the gripped cable to prevent movement of the securing device during cable fluctuations with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10: Shrubsall further teaches the securing arrangement of claim 1, wherein the second securing device comprises a clamping device (15,16,17; Fig.6), wherein the clamping device comprises a passage through which the dropper cable extends (16; Fig.6).
Regarding claim 11: Shrubsall further teaches the securing arrangement of claim 10, wherein the clamping device has a clamping mechanism (15; Fig.6) to clamp the dropper cable (3; Fig.6) in the passage (16; Fig.6), wherein the securing member of the second securing device is a clamping member of the clamping mechanism (Fig.6).
Regarding claim 12: Shrubsall further teaches wherein the clamping mechanism of the second securing device urges the clamping member to a clamping position in which the dropper cable is clamped (Para.[0072], lines 1-4 and 12-15). Shrubsall does not teach the clamping mechanism including the spring.
However, Peart teaches the use of a spring to bias a clamping mechanism (33; Fig.19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement of Shrubsall with a spring to urge the securing members to a securing position to ensure the securing arrangement maintains positive contact between the securing members with the secured cables to prevent inadvertent cable movements during system operations with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 13: Shrubsall further teaches the securing arrangement of claim 12, wherein the urging of the clamping member to the clamping position urges the clamping member towards the passage (Para.[0072], lines 1-4 and 12-15).
Regarding claim 17: Shrubsall further teaches the securing arrangement of claim 11, wherein the first securing device and the second securing device are in a layered arrangement (Fig.4 and 6).
Regarding claim 18: Shrubsall further teaches the securing arrangement of claim 17, wherein the main part of the first securing device has two side members connected together by the clamping device, wherein the clamping device is layered between the side members (clamping device 15 interior to side members of catenary hook body 4; Fig.4).
Regarding claim 23: Shrubsall further teaches a dropper assembly for use with overhead electric lines for electric railway systems, the dropper assembly comprising: a securing arrangement as claimed in claim 1; and a dropper cable (3; Fig.1) suspended from the securing arrangement (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 24: Shrubsall further teaches the dropper assembly of claim 23, wherein the dropper cable has a main portion which extends downwardly (3; Fig.1) to a further securing arrangement (2; Fig.1) for securing the dropper cable to an elongate contact cable (5; Fig.1).
Regarding claim 25: Shrubsall further teaches a method of using a dropper assembly as claimed in claim 23 to suspend a dropper cable, the method comprising fastening the first securing device (20; Fig.6) to the messenger wire (6; Fig.6), and fastening the dropper cable (3; Fig.6) to the second securing device (4'; Fig.6).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrubsall in view of Peart and Shuey (US 20030115723 A1).
Regarding claim 15: Shrubsall does not teach wherein the clamping device has a locking arrangement to lock the clamping member in the clamping position, wherein the locking arrangement comprises a button which is actuatable by hand to release the clamping member, wherein when the button is released, the spring of the clamping mechanism returns the clamping member to the clamping position.
However, Shuey teaches a clamping device that has a locking arrangement (16,18; Fig.1) to lock the clamping member in the clamping position (20 against cable 26; Fig.4), wherein the locking arrangement comprises a button which is actuatable by hand to release the clamping member (16; Fig.4), wherein when the button is released, the spring (22; Fig.4) of the clamping mechanism returns the clamping member to the clamping position (spring biasing wedge 20 against cable 26; Fig.4). Therefore, it would be obvious to modify the arrangement of Shrubsall with the locking arrangement of Shuey since it is obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrubsall in view of Peart and Varney (US 1668346 A).
Regarding claim 16: Shrubsall does not teach wherein the clamping mechanism is to clamp the dropper cable against an electrical conductor to enable electrical power transfer between the messenger wire and the dropper cable.
However, Varney teaches wherein the clamping mechanism is to clamp the dropper cable against an electrical conductor to enable electrical power transfer between the messenger wire and the dropper cable (electrical connection between messenger cable and contact wire; Pg.3, lines 14-21). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement of Shrubsall to provide conductivity between the components as needed for the system configuration since it is obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 20: Shrubsall teaches wherein the clamping member is arranged to urge a main portion of the dropper cable against an interior surface of one of the side members (Para.[0072], lines 1-4 and 12-15). Shrubsall does not teach wherein the one of the side members is an electrical conductor.
However, Varney teaches wherein the securing arrangement components are electrically conductive so that the messenger wire and contact wire are in good contact (Pg.3, lines 14-21). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement of Shrubsall to provide conductivity between the components as needed for the system configuration since it is obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrubsall in view of Peart and Liu et al. (CN 106114290 A).
Regarding claim 22: Shrubsall teaches a passage of the clamping device (16; Fig.6). Shrubsall does not teach wherein the securing arrangement comprises one or more holes through which an end region of the dropper cable can be looped.
However, Liu teaches wherein the securing arrangement (Fig.1) comprises one or more holes (8; Fig.3) through which an end region of the dropper cable can be looped (loop of 1; Fig.1), wherein the direction of the one or more holes is nonparallel to the passage (clamping passage of clamp 16; Fig.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement of Shrubsall to provide holes to fix the end of the dropper cable as in Liu to provide fixed locations for the ends of the dropper cable during installation with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEAVEN BUFFINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm ET.
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 (571)272-8300. 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.
/HEAVEN R BUFFINGTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights