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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britt, Jr. (US 9546498 hereinafter Britt) in view of Lockhart et al. (US 8652629 hereinafter Lockhart and further in view of C. L. STROUP (US 1815598 hereinafter Stroup).
In regards to claim 1, Britt discloses;” A composite crossarm (Abstract) configured to be fixed on a pole (Fig. 6 (40)) to attach a conducting wire (Col. 1, Lines 38-45), wherein the composite crossarm comprises a first crossarm comprising: a first rod (Fig. 6 (12)); an intermediate fitting being a cross-shaped fitting (Fig. 6 (46)), the intermediate fitting being connected to a middle portion of the first rod and configured to fix the first crossarm on the pole (Fig. 6 (shown)); and configured to attach the conducting wire”,
but does not directly disclose;” a first insulating layer covering at least part of an outer periphery of the first rod.”
However Lockhart discloses a crossarm formed using a glass fiber reinforce polymer (GFRP) (Col. 4, Lines 4-6) that has in addition a gel coating (Col. 4, Lines 33-40) to help protect the cross arm from aging, and weathering. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to coat the GFRP cross member to help prevent early replacement due to age and extreme weather conditions. The longer a structure is used in service, there is a reduction in maintenance requirements. Thus using the coated cross member as disclosed by Lockhart with the cross member of Britt, the claimed invention is disclosed.
but does not directly disclose;” two wire-attaching fittings respectively connected to two ends of the first rod.
However Britt does disclose the use of mounting hole (Fig. 6 (36)) on the arm to accommodate possible wire attachment (Col. 1, Lines 38-45), where the location can be any location on the arm (Col. 8, Lines 51-59). Therefore, wire attachment structures are capable of being attached at the ends of the crossarm. Cross arms are used to separate high voltage power distributions circuit to prevent shorting and arcing. Thus using this feature with a modified Britt, the claimed invention is disclosed.
In regards to claim 2, a modified Britt discloses;” The composite crossarm according to claim 1”, but does not directly disclose;” wherein the composite crossarm further comprises a second crossarm, wherein the first crossarm is fixed on the pole in a horizontal direction; the second crossarm is fixed on the pole in a vertical direction and is located above the first crossarm; and the first crossarm and the second crossarm are separated from each other.
However, Stroup discloses a bracket used with crossarms to provide electrical power that is attached to a pole ( Fig. 1 (shown)). The bracket supports a horizontal and a vertical pair of insulated arms. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to provide for three (Three Phase) electrical power conductors in the same structure. The use of three phase electrical transmission is a commonly used method in providing electricity generation and distribution.
Therefore, using a third leg or phase on the same pole, efficient power distribution is achieved. Thus using the teachings of Stroup, with the modified Britt, the claimed invention is disclosed.
In regards to claim 3, a modified Britt discloses;” The composite crossarm according to claim 1, wherein the intermediate fitting (Fig. 5B (shown)) comprises an intermediate sleeve (Fig. 5A (46, covering the crossarm)) and a pole connecting member (Fig. 6 (46)) that are connected to each other, the intermediate sleeve fitting over the middle portion of the first rod (Fig. 5B (shows upper and lower portion of the bracket on the crossarm), the pole connecting member being vertically connected to the intermediate sleeve, and configured to fix the first crossarm to the pole (Fig. 6) shown).
In regards to claim 4, a modified Britt discloses;” The composite crossarm according to claim 3, wherein an inner wall of the intermediate sleeve is shaped and sized to match a cross section of the first rod (Fig. 6) shown).”
In regards to claim 9, a modified Britt discloses;” The composite crossarm according to claim 1, wherein a cross section of the first rod is square (Britt Fig. 3A (shown)).
In regards to claim 10, a modified Britt discloses;” The composite crossarm according to claim 1, wherein the first rod is formed by pultruding glass fiber or aramid fiber impregnated with epoxy resin (Britt Col. 9, Lines 1-24).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britt, Jr. (US 9546498 hereinafter Britt) in view of Lockhart et al. (US 8652629 hereinafter Lockhart and further in view of C. L. STROUP (US 1815598 hereinafter Stroup) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of LIU J (CN 208718483 hereinafter Liu).
In regards to claim 7, a modified Britt discloses;” The composite crossarm according to claim 1”, but does not directly disclose;” wherein the wire-attaching fitting comprises an end sleeve and a groove structure that are connected to each other; the end sleeve is configured to be connected to an end of the first rod; and the groove structure is configured to
attach the conducting wire.”
However, Liu discloses a cross arm structure having an outer insulation layer used for added protection, that has wire attachments on the ends as shown in figure 6, that has an end sleeve (Fig. 6 (3)) and grooves (Fig. 6 (55)) that hods the high voltage wires. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to be able to use a multi-function clamp for the wire as needed at the time of instillation. Having various attachment structures available when putting the power distribution network in place gives the installer flexibility as shown in figures 3, 4 and 7. Therefore, using the multi-function clamp arrangement as disclosed by Liu with a modified Britt the claimed invention is disclosed.
In regards to claim 8, a modified Britt discloses;” The composite crossarm according to claim 7, wherein a first groove is provided on a top surface of the groove structure, and configured to receive the conducting wire; a second groove is circumferentially provided on a sidewall of the groove structure, and configured to assist in fixing the conducting wire; and a lifting part is provided on a bottom of the groove structure, and configured to lift and mount the first crossarm (Liu fig.’s 4, and 7 (shown)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, and 11-12 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL F MCALLISTER whose telephone number is (571)272-2453. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM-4 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, Timothy Thompson can be reached at 571-272-2342. 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.
/MICHAEL F MCALLISTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
