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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/07/2024 and 10/07/2025 have been received and considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are accepted.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, and 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strashny (US 12322918 B2), in view of Heieis et al. (US 20210008989 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Strashny teaches (Fig. 1-3 and 8): A contactor assembly (current collector 118) for connecting a mobile machine (100) to a plurality of conductor rails (108)(Fig. 1), comprising: a base (frame 302) having a length, a width, and a height (Fig. 3), and a top surface (top surface 322), a bottom surface (underside 324), a first side region (inner flange 314), a second side region (outer flange 316), and a central region (substrate 308) between the first and second side regions (Fig. 3); and at least one conductor terminal (terminals 306), with each conductor terminal (306) including a bottom surface (inner sleeves 412) exposed at the bottom surface of the base (Fig. 8); and wherein the central region (308) is offset from the first and second side regions (314, 316) along a height direction (Fig. 8).
Strashny teaches the at least one conductor terminal (terminals 306), but does not explicitly teach that the terminals are located in each region of the base.
However, Heieis teaches an alternate electrical interface system, wherein (Fig. 1-2): a base (contact element carrier 14) has a central region and two side regions offset along a height direction (Fig. 2), wherein a terminal (contact elements 17) is located in each region of the base (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Strashny to relocate the side terminals (306A and 306C; shown Fig. 8) to the first and second side regions that are offset from the central region, as disclosed by Heieis, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would permit simultaneous contact and charging with three conductor rails positioned further apart and at different heights, making it harder for dirt, dust, or moisture to create an electrically conductive path between live rails.
Regarding claim 2, Strashny further teaches (Fig. 1-3 and 8): wherein the first side region (314) and second side region (316) are co-planar to one another (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 3, Strashny further teaches (Fig. 1-3 and 8): the central region (308) is parallel to the first side region and the second side region (314, 316)(Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 4, Strashny further teaches (Fig. 1-3 and 8): an angled transition portion (angled sides 310, 312) on each side of the central region (308), the angled transition portions connecting the central region to the first and second side regions (314, 316)(Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Strashny and Heisis further teaches (Fig. 1-3 and 8): each region (314, 316, 308) of the base (302) includes a plurality of conductor terminals (306) aligned lengthwise along the respective region (terminals 306A1-A3 and 307C1-C3 of Strashny; Fig. 3, to be modified by Heisis to be on the first and second side regions 314, 316 offset from the central region).
Regarding claim 11, Strashny does not explicitly teach that the ratio of the length of the contactor assembly (118) to the width of the contactor assembly is about 1:1.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the contactor assembly to resemble a square shape with similar length and width, since it has been held the modifying the configuration or shape of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B). Changing the shape of the contactor assembly to have similar length and width would provide better space utilization, and more flexible terminal positioning.
Regarding claim 12, Strashny teaches (Fig. 1-3 and 8): A contactor assembly (118) for connecting a mobile machine (100) to a plurality of conductor rails (108)(Fig. 1), comprising: a base (frame 302) having a length, a width, and a height (Fig. 3), and a top surface (top surface 322), a bottom surface (underside 324), a first side region (inner flange 314), a second side region (outer flange 316), and a central region (substrate 308) between the first and second side regions (Fig. 3); and a plurality of conductor terminals (306), with each conductor terminal (306) including a bottom surface (inner sleeves 412) exposed at the bottom surface of the base (Fig. 8); and wherein the central region (308) is offset from the first and second side regions (314, 316) along a height direction (Fig. 8).
Strashny teaches the at least one conductor terminal (terminals 306), but does not explicitly teach that the terminals are located in each region of the base.
However, Heieis teaches an alternate electrical interface system, wherein (Fig. 1-2): a base (contact element carrier 14) has a central region and two side regions offset along a height direction (Fig. 2), wherein a terminal (contact elements 17) is located in each region of the base (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Strashny to relocate the side terminals (306A and 306C; shown Fig. 8) to the first and second side regions that are offset from the central region, as disclosed by Heieis, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would permit simultaneous contact and charging with three conductor rails positioned further apart and at different heights, making it harder for dirt, dust, or moisture to create an electrically conductive path between live rails.
Strashny does not explicitly teach that the total width of the contactor assembly is in the range of about 525 mm to about 875 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change a total width of the contactor assembly to a range of about 525 mm to about 875 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A). Increasing a surface area width to a range of 525 mm to 875 mm would allow for greater air circulation, which prevents heat buildup and prevents cramped assemblies by allowing more spacing between the terminals.
Regarding claim 13, Strashny further teaches (Fig. 1-3 and 8): the first side region (314) and second side region (316) are co-planar to one another (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 14, Strashny further teaches (Fig. 1-3 and 8): the central region (308) is parallel to the first side region and the second side region (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 15, Strashny does not explicitly teach that the maximum height of the contactor assembly is in the range of about 225 mm to about 375 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change a maximum height of the contactor assembly to a range of about 225 mm to about 375 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A). Increasing a maximum height to a range of 225 mm to 375 mm would allow for greater air circulation, which prevents heat buildup and prevents cramped assemblies by allowing more spacing for mounting the terminals.
Regarding claim 16, Strashny further teaches (Fig. 1-3 and 8): an angled transition portion (angled sides 310, 312) on each side of the central region (308), the angled transition portions connecting the central region to the first and second side regions (314, 316)(Fig. 8), but does not explicitly teach that the combined width of the central region and the angled transitions portions is in the range of about 250 mm to about 410 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change a combined width of the central region and the angled transitions portions to be in the range of about 250 mm to about 410 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A). Increasing a size of the contactor assembly allow for greater air circulation, which prevents heat buildup and prevents cramped assemblies by allowing more spacing for mounting the terminals.
Regarding claim 17, Strashny does not explicitly teach that the ratio of the length of the contactor assembly (118) to the width of the contactor assembly is about 1:1.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the contactor assembly to resemble a square shape with similar length and width, since it has been held the modifying the configuration or shape of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B). Changing the shape of the contactor assembly to have similar length and width would provide better space utilization, and more flexible terminal positioning.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 7-10 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.
Claims 18-20 are allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, the prior art fails to teach a pair of bumpers extending lengthwise along a bottom surface of the angled transition portions. While Strashny further teaches (Fig. 1-3 and 8): pair of bumpers (bumpers 318, 320) extending lengthwise along a bottom surface of the central region (substrate 308), the examiner finds no obvious reason to modify Strashny such that a pair of bumps extend lengthwise along a bottom surface of the angled transition portions. Such a modification would require improper hindsight reasoning.
It is noted that none of the prior art references teach placing bumpers on a bottom surface of an angled transition portion (elements 310, 312 of Strashny).
Regarding claim 7 and its depending claims 8-9, the prior art fails to teach a plurality of busbars, each busbar extending lengthwise along the top surface of a respective one of the first side region, second side region, and central region, and each busbar being electrically connected to the plurality of conductor terminals of the respective region. While Strashny further teaches (Fig. 1-3 and 8): a plurality of busbars (busbars 304) extending lengthwise along the top surface of the central region (308)(Fig. 3), with the busbar (304) being electrically connected to the plurality of terminals (306)(Fig. 3), the examiner finds no obvious reason to modify Strashny such that the plurality of busbars extend lengthwise along the top surface of a respective one of the first side region, second side region, and central region, and each busbar being electrically connected to the plurality of conductor terminals of the respective region. Such a modification would require improper hindsight reasoning.
It is noted that none of the prior art references teach placing busbars on a top surface of first and second side regions and a top surface of a central region.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art fails to teach a plurality of support rollers partially enclosed within the base. While Strashny further teaches (Fig. 1-3 and 8): a base (frame 302) having a length, a width, and a height (Fig. 3), and a top surface (top surface 322), a bottom surface (underside 324), a first side region (inner flange 314), a second side region (outer flange 316), and a central region (substrate 308) between the first and second side regions (Fig. 3); and at least one conductor terminal (terminals 306), the examiner finds no obvious reason to modify Strashny such that the base further include a plurality of support rollers partially enclosed within. Such a modification would require improper hindsight reasoning.
Regarding independent claim 18 and its depending claims 19-20, Strashny teaches (Fig. 1-3 and 8): A contactor assembly (current collector 118) for connecting a mobile machine (100) to a plurality of conductor rails (108)(Fig. 1), comprising: a base (frame 302) having a length, a width, and a height (Fig. 3), and a top surface (top surface 322), a bottom surface (underside 324), a first side region (inner flange 314), a second side region (outer flange 316), and a central region (substrate 308) between the first and second side regions (Fig. 3); an angled transition portion (310, 312) on each side of the central region (308)(Fig. 8), the angled transition portions (310, 312) connecting the central region to the first and second side regions (Fig. 8); a plurality of conductor terminals (terminals 306), with each conductor terminal (306) including a bottom surface (inner sleeves 412) exposed at the bottom surface of the base (Fig. 8); wherein the central region (308) is offset from the first and second side regions (314, 316) along the height direction (Fig. 8), the central region is parallel to the first side region and the second side region (Fig. 8), and the first side region and second side region (314, 316) are co-planar to one another (Fig. 8).
However, the prior art fails to teach a pair of bumpers extending lengthwise along a bottom surface of the angled transition portions. Therefore, the claims are allowable for the same reasons as claim 5 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure of an electrical interface system for a mobile vehicle: US-4698462-A, US-20120067684-A1, US-20160264000-A1, US-20170080813-A1, US-10793006-B2, US-20230231349-A1, US-20240157802-A1, US-12552259-B2, CN-112744078-A.
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