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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the first non-final office action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE10 2021 127 387.0, filed on 10/21/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/18/2024 has been received and considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are accepted.
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 16-19 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.
Claim 16 recites the term “it” in line 9. It is unclear what the applicant is referring to by the term “it”. For examination purposes, the term “it” has been construed as “the setpoint speed”.
Claims 17-19 are rejected for their dependency on claim 16.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-9, 12, 15-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Pachler (US 20200055417 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Pachler teaches (Fig. 3-6): A method for automatically transferring at least one pivotable trolley pole (articulated arm device 45) from a start position (retracted position 56; Fig. 5) into an end position (contact position 65; Fig. 6), wherein at least one setpoint position value is assigned to the end position (contact position 65 measured by sensor 63; para. 0016 and 0057), at least one actual position value of a current position (working position) of the trolley pole (45) is detected and the trolley pole is pivoted automatically about at least one axis (sensor 63 detects the relative distance A between the charging contacts 47, 48 and the line 66 so that the trolley pole can be pivoted into a contact position; para. 0057; Figs. 3 and 5-6), wherein a setpoint speed (speed of the charging contacts) is determined from a positional deviation of the detected actual position value from the setpoint position value (para. 0057) and is dynamically limited to a dynamically limited setpoint speed to prevent overshooting when the end position is reached (charging contact is decelerated before reaching the charging contact surface such that they come into contact slowly; para. 0025-0027).
Regarding claim 2, Pachler further teaches (Fig. 3-6): the dynamic limitation of the setpoint speed is dependent on the positional deviation of the actual position value from the setpoint position value (speed is reduced at a relative distance between the charging contact and the charging contact surface; para. 0025-0027).
Regarding claim 3, Pachler further teaches (Fig. 3-6): a stronger dynamic limit is set for smaller positional deviations relative to the dynamic limit for larger positional deviations (para. 0029).
Regarding claim 4, Pachler further teaches (Fig. 3-6): the setpoint speed to be limited (charging contact speed) is determined from the positional deviation and a linear calculation factor (speed reduced according to a linear function; para. 0029).
Regarding claim 5, Pachler further teaches (Fig. 3-6): for dynamic limitation, a maximum permissible speed (maximum speed, to be reduced based on position) is specified as a function of the positional deviation (para. 0025-0029).
Regarding claim 8, Pachler further teaches (Fig. 3-6): an actual speed (speed of charging contact) is determined from the recorded actual position value (para. 0027-0029).
Regarding claim 9, Pachler further teaches (Fig. 3-6): a manipulated variable (torque for electric motor) for swiveling the trolley pole is determined from the dynamically limited setpoint speed and the actual speed (para. 0032).
Regarding claim 12, Pachler further teaches (Fig. 3-6): the trolley pole (45) is continuously moved from the start position to the end position (Figs. 3 and 6).
Regarding claim 15, Pachler further teaches (Fig. 3-6): the end position (65) is determined from sensor data (para. 0015-0016; Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 16, Pachler teaches (Fig. 3-6): A current collector system for arrangement on a vehicle roof with at least one pivotable trolley pole (45)(para. 0002), which for transfer from a start position (56) to an end position (65), to which at least one setpoint position value is assigned (contact position 55 measured by sensor 63; para. 0016 and 0057), is automatically pivotable about at least one axis (Figs. 5-6), with a control unit (control device) for controlling the transfer (para. 0030-0031) and with at least one means (sensor) for detecting at least one actual position value of the current position of the trolley pole (45)(para. 0030), wherein the control unit (control device) is set up to determine a setpoint speed (speed of the charging contacts) from a positional deviation of a detected actual position value from the setpoint position value (para. 0057) and to limit the setpoint speed dynamically to a dynamically limited setpoint speed in order to avoid overshooting when the end position is reached (charging contact is decelerated before reaching the charging contact surface such that they come into contact slowly; para. 0025-0027).
Regarding claim 17, Pachler further teaches (Fig. 3-6): the control unit (control device) is part of a modular control device (obvious to design components as modular, for ease of breaking the system into smaller, interchangeable parts that can be replaced independently).
Regarding claim 19, Pachler further teaches (Fig. 3-6): sensors for detecting the relative position of an overhead line (para. 0010).
Regarding claim 20, Pachler further teaches (Fig. 3-6): the trolley pole (45) is a trolley pole of a trolley bus (electric bus; para. 0008), and wherein the end position (65) corresponds to a contact position on an overhead line (Fig. 6).
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) 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pachler (US 20200055417 A1), in view of Thein et al. (DE102015014486A1, provided).
Regarding claim 11, Pachler further teaches (Fig. 3-6): the trolley pole (45) is automatically swiveled about a horizontal axis (axis of horizontal shaft that the pole 45 rotates on; Fig. 6), but does not explicitly teach that the trolley pole is swiveled about a vertical axis.
However, Thein teaches an alternate current collector system, wherein (Fig. 1-2): a trolley pole (collector bar 3) is swiveled about a vertical axis (rotation axis 35)(Fig. 1-2; para. 0043).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Pachler to include a trolley pole that can be swiveled about a vertical axis, as disclosed by Thein, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide lateral flexibility, allowing vehicles to maneuver freely around obstacles, navigate turns, and shift lanes without losing contact with overhead wires.
Regarding claim 18, Pachler does not explicitly teach pneumatic actuators for swiveling the trolley pole about at least one of a horizontal axis or a vertical axis.
However, Thein teaches an alternate current collector system, wherein (Fig. 1-2): a trolley pole (collector bar 3) is swiveled about a vertical axis (rotation axis 35)(Fig. 1-2; para. 0043) through pneumatic actuators (pneumatic cylinders 8)(para. 0042; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Pachler to include a trolley pole that can be swiveled about a vertical axis through pneumatic actuators, as disclosed by Thein, with a reasonable expectation of success because pneumatic cylinders with compressed air provide rapid, safe, and powerful torque without the need for complex electric motors.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pachler (US 20200055417 A1), in view of Lenz et al. (DE 102019130349 A1, provided).
Regarding claim 13, Pachler further teaches (Fig. 3-6): the at least one actual position value (measured charging contact position) is recorded, but does not teach that the position value is recorded as an actual angle value.
However, Lenz teaches an alternate pivotable trolley pole, wherein (Fig. 1): a position value of a trolley pole (6) is recorded as an actual angle value (tilt angle)(Lenz, page 6, para. 5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Pachler to record an actual tilt angle value of the trolley pole, as disclosed by Lenz, with a reasonable expectation of success because the tilt angle can be used as a useful signal for controlling the pantograph in the control unit, and the vertical and horizontal deflection of the pantograph can be determined by the tilt angle (Lenz, page 6, para. 3-5).
Regarding claim 14, Pachler does not teach that a detected actual angle value is converted into an actual height value to control the swiveling about a horizontal axis.
However, Lenz teaches an alternate pivotable trolley pole, wherein (Fig. 1): a position value of a trolley pole (6) is recorded as an actual angle value (tilt angle), which is converted into an actual height value (vertical deflection) to control the swiveling about a horizontal axis (Lenz, page 6, para. 3-5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Pachler to record an actual tilt angle value of the trolley pole for controlling the swiveling of the pole about a horizontal axis, as disclosed by Lenz, with a reasonable expectation of success because the tilt angle can be used as a useful signal for controlling the pantograph in the control unit, wherein the inclined position of the bus can be taken into account when controlling the pantograph movements (Lenz, page 6, para. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 10 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 claims and if all rejections in view of 35 USC § 112 second paragraph are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, the prior art fails to teach for dynamic limitation, the setpoint speed to be limited and the maximum permissible speed are compared with each other. While Pachler further teaches (Fig. 3-6): a setpoint speed (speed of the charging contacts) is determined from a positional deviation of the detected actual position value from the setpoint position value (para. 0057) and a maximum permissible speed (maximum speed, to be reduced based on position), the examiner finds no obvious reason to modify Pachler such that the setpoint speed and the maximum permissible speed are compared with each other. Such a modification would require improper hindsight reasoning.
It is noted that instead of comparing a setpoint speed to a maximum permissible speed, Pachler’s invention has a control element that directly controls the reduction of speed after a signal from the sensor device indicates a charging contact below a defined relative distance (Pachler, para. 0029).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art fails to teach the value of the maximum permissible speed, if the setpoint speed to be limited is greater than the maximum permissible speed, or the value of the setpoint speed to be limited, if the setpoint speed to be limited is less than the maximum permissible speed, is used as the value of the dynamically limited setpoint speed. This claim is allowable for the same reasons as claim 6 above, since the examiner finds no obvious reason to modify Pachler such that the setpoint speed and the maximum permissible speed are compared with each other.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art fails to teach the manipulated variable is determined as the output variable of a proportional-integral control with the difference between the dynamically limited setpoint speed and the actual speed as the input variable. While Pachler further teaches (Fig. 3-6): the manipulated variable (torque) is determined as the output variable of a proportional-integral control (control device and electric motor; para. 0037), the examiner finds no obvious reason to modify Pachler such that the difference between a dynamically limited setpoint speed and the actual speed is an input variable for controlling the manipulated variable of the vehicle. Such a modification would require improper hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure of a precise mechanism for automatically moving a trolley pole to an end position: US-20140097054-A1, US-20170080813-A1, EP-0575248-A1, CN-204440072-U, WO-2016000860-A1, DE-102016207311-A1, CN-110549857-A, EP-3974234-A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENG XI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6102. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. 9:00am to 6:00pm EST.
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 5712726684. 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.
/CHENG LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights