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 statement filed September 10, 2024 has been considered.
________________________________________
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification contains the broken cross-reference text "Error! Reference source not found." on page 4, line 31, and page 12, line 4, instead of identifying the intended figures. Appropriate correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01 and 37 CFR 1.71(a).
Suggested Correction: Replace each broken cross-reference with the intended figure number supported by the original disclosure and correct the adjoining spacing and punctuation.
________________________________________
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informality: "the ends of the lateral section has a ramp" contains incorrect subject-verb agreement. Appropriate correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(m). In light of the ramp-up and ramp-down disclosure on specification page 4, lines 5-10, and the ramps at either end described on page 10, lines 33-34, the claim is understood to require a ramp at each end.
Suggested Correction: Replace "the ends of the lateral section has a ramp" with "each end of the lateral section has a ramp."
________________________________________
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites "the section of railway track of claim 12," but claim 12 recites a concrete slab including the charging arrangement of claim 1 and does not identify a section of railway track. Claim 11, in contrast, expressly recites a section of railway track. The reference to claim 12 therefore leaves uncertain whether claim 13 incorporates the slab of claim 12 and additionally requires a track section, or instead was intended to incorporate the track section of claim 11. The specification describes both slab and track installations but does not resolve this conflicting claim reference.
Suggested Correction: Identify the intended preceding claim and state expressly the relationship between the concrete slab and the railway-track section. If the intended parent is claim 11, replace "claim 12" with "claim 11."
________________________________________
References Used
Reference 1 (Primary) - US 2021/0221245 A1.
Reference 2 - WO 2019/175166 A1.
Reference 3 - US 2018/0072175 A1.
Reference 4 - US 2016/0221591 A1.
Reference 5 - US 2012/0247362 A1.
Reference 6 - WO 2002/043983 A1.
Reference 7 - US 6,732,418 B2.
________________________________________
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) A charging arrangement for a mass transit vehicle, the charging arrangement including (L2) at least one conductive portion and (L3) a safety arrangement, wherein: (L4) the at least one conductive portion is configured to deliver charging to a mass transit vehicle at a level of at least 500 kW; and (L5) the safety arrangement is configured to activate the conductive portion if a mass transit vehicle is detected.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 teaches electric train 1 and mass-transit carriages 10 in Figure 1 and paragraph 47. (L2) Reference 1 teaches conductive charging rails 3 and 4 below or below and beside the vehicle in Figures 4-5 and paragraphs 45 and 58-62. (L3) Reference 1 teaches a safety arrangement including position and contact sensing, power control modules 406/506, rail-side controller 621, power switches 606/614, pilot-signal circuits, and digital handshake modules in paragraphs 15-18, 64, and 80-90. (L4) Reference 1 does not expressly state a charging level of at least 500 kW. Reference 2 teaches a fast-charging contact operating at 500-1000 A, preferably 800 A, at 750 V, corresponding to 375-750 kW and preferably 600 kW, on source page 10. (L5) Reference 1 teaches that module 506 energizes a rail only after detecting a carriage in position, and that controller 621 and the handshake modules keep the rail earthed until the vehicle, contact, and expected response are detected, in paragraphs 64 and 80-90.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the charging apparatus of Reference 1 for the at-least-500-kW transfer taught by Reference 2, because both references address rapid conductive charging of mass-transit vehicles during a limited stop, and the known higher transfer level predictably reduces charging time while retaining Reference 1's contact and vehicle-detection interlocks.
________________________________________
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The charging arrangement of claim 1, wherein the charging level is between 500 kW and 750 kW.
Analysis
(L1) The claim 1 analysis is incorporated. Reference 1 does not state the claimed interval. Reference 2 teaches a 375-750-kW transfer range and a preferred 600-kW point on source page 10. The disclosed range overlaps 500-750 kW, and the preferred point lies within the claimed interval.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select the overlapping 500-750-kW portion, including Reference 2's preferred 600-kW point, because that known operating level predictably provides the rapid short-stop charging sought by both references.
________________________________________
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 3.
Claim Text
(L1) The charging arrangement of claim 1, wherein the safety arrangement includes a weight sensor to detect the presence of a mass transit vehicle.
Analysis
(L1) The claim 1 analysis is incorporated. References 1 and 2 do not specify a weight sensor. Reference 3 teaches weight sensors among sensors placed near charging station 100 to determine vehicle position and detect physical aspects in paragraph 56. Supplying that sensor output to Reference 1's existing safety controller provides a physical presence input before rail energization.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Reference 3's charging-station weight sensor to Reference 1's presence interlock, because Reference 1 already requires reliable vehicle-position confirmation and the known weight input predictably provides an independent physical check before the high-power conductor is enabled.
________________________________________
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 4.
Claim Text
(L1) The charging arrangement of claim 1, wherein the safety arrangement includes a sensor mounted to the track to monitor the vibration signature of the vehicle to detect the presence of a mass transit vehicle.
Analysis
(L1) The claim 1 analysis is incorporated. References 1 and 2 do not teach the specific track-mounted vibration sensor. Reference 4 teaches sensors S1-S6 mounted to rail 3 or its support in Figure 2 and paragraphs 17, 44, 55, and 58. A moving rail vehicle causes rail vibrations, a train/car/wheel event occurs when the vehicle passes the sensor, and an event may be threshold-triggered by an approaching rail vehicle, as taught in paragraphs 13, 16-17, 33, and 44. Processor 13 evaluates the oscillating sensor signal and its frequency spectrum in paragraphs 55 and 64. That vehicle-caused time signal and evaluated spectrum constitute the monitored vibration signature used to detect a vehicle event.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Reference 1's safety controller with the rail-mounted vehicle-event sensor of Reference 4, because Reference 1 requires reliable vehicle presence before energization and Reference 4's known rail-vibration signal predictably supplies a track-based presence indication independent of the shoe contact.
________________________________________
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 3.
Claim Text
(L1) The charging arrangement of claim 3, wherein the safety arrangement further includes a signalling apparatus configured to connect to the mass transit vehicle, and to receive a signal to identify the mass transit vehicle.
Analysis
(L1) The claim 3 analysis is incorporated. Reference 3 teaches station receiver 126 and vehicle emitter 134 exchanging RFID and CAN information, including a unique tag or bus ID that identifies a vehicle intended to charge, in paragraphs 47-53 and 100-103. The receiver is a signalling apparatus connected by the communication link to the vehicle and receives the vehicle-identifying signal.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Reference 3's RFID/CAN identity message with Reference 1's existing handshake, because identifying the particular vehicle predictably prevents charging an unrecognized vehicle and supplies an additional safety check before energization.
________________________________________
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) An arrangement as claimed in claim 1, wherein the conductive portion is a lateral section for location below a vehicle and (L2) configured to receive a shoe for electrical contact whereby (L3) the safety arrangement activates the conductive portion when the contact is made between the conductive portion and the shoe.
Analysis
(L1) The claim 1 analysis is incorporated. Reference 1 defines a rail as below or below and to the side of the vehicle in paragraph 45 and shows lateral charging rails 3/4 in Figures 4-5 and paragraphs 58-62. (L2) Reference 1 teaches shoes 402/404 contacting rails 3/4 and connecting to the vehicle batteries in paragraph 61. (L3) Reference 1 teaches that shoe contact completes a pilot circuit, controller 621 then connects the power source through switches 606/614, and loss of contact returns the rail to earth in paragraphs 80-84.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Reference 1's disclosed lateral rail, shoe, and contact-proving activation with the Reference 2 power level, because those components form the known conductive interface and predictably prevent exposed high-power energization.
________________________________________
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 5.
Claim Text
(L1) An arrangement as claimed in claim 6 wherein (L2) the lateral section is 3 to 5 metres in length to provide a range for contact with (L3) the retractable shoe.
Analysis
(L1) The claim 6 analysis is incorporated. (L2) Reference 1 does not state a 3-to-5-metre rail length. It teaches in paragraph 59 that the length of rails 3/4 is predetermined to define a charging zone shorter than the shortest train so the train covers the energized rail. Reference 5 teaches modular electrified rail assemblies 11 with conductive buss bars 46 extending along track 14 and engaging brush plate 48 in Figure 2B and paragraphs 4 and 20. Paragraph 25 specifies an overall rail-assembly length of about four to six metres and selection of length to suit the application. Applying a four-to-five-metre length from that disclosed interval to the conductive charging section of Reference 1 places the length within the claimed interval and provides a finite span over which the shoe can contact the rail. Reference 5's stated dimension is for its rail assembly; applying that dimension to the charging rail is a selection in the combination, rather than an express disclosure of Reference 1's rail length. (L3) Reference 1 does not expressly identify its shoes 402/404 as retractable. Reference 2 teaches a positioning device with a pantograph or pole that moves a contact-element support toward a charging contact and back to the vehicle on source pages 11-12. Applying that approach-and-return mounting to Reference 1's shoe provides the retractable contact.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select a four-to-five-metre charging-rail section using Reference 5's known finite electrified-rail module dimensions, because Reference 1 already requires a predetermined, coverable charging zone and Reference 5 teaches selecting modular conductor-carrying rail lengths for installation needs. Both concern the length of a rail along which a vehicle-mounted collector makes conductive contact, making Reference 5 reasonably pertinent to this rail-sizing problem despite its industrial-carrier use. Selecting a length in the overlapping interval predictably provides a finite contact span that can be covered by the train. Using Reference 2's approach-and-return contact mounting for the shoe would permit engagement for charging and withdrawal for travel, while retaining Reference 1's contact-proving interlock. The rail length and retractable mounting retain their respective contact-span and engagement functions.
________________________________________
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 6.
Claim Text
(L1) An arrangement as claimed in claim 6 in which the ends of the lateral section has a ramp.
Analysis
(L1) The claim 6 analysis is incorporated. References 1 and 2 do not disclose a ramped conductor-rail end. Reference 6 teaches that a conductor rail conventionally has an end ramp for smooth and gradual pick-up-shoe disengagement and shows conductor rail end 10, ramp member 20, upper ramp surface 23, and end 24 in Figures 1-4 and pages 1-5. Providing this ramp at each end supplies the two-ended ramp arrangement understood from the claim and specification.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide each end of Reference 1's charging rail with Reference 6's known ramp, because the gradual surface predictably guides shoe entry or exit, reduces impact and arcing, and leaves the charging and safety functions unchanged.
________________________________________
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) An arrangement as claimed in claim 6 in which the arrangement includes two lateral sections as rails and (L2) there is a shoe for each lateral section.
Analysis
(L1) The claim 6 analysis is incorporated. Reference 1 teaches the third and fourth charging rails 3 and 4 in Figure 4 and paragraphs 58-61. These are the two lateral conductive sections below the vehicle. (L2) Reference 1 teaches first and second electrical rail contacts or shoes 402 and 404, respectively contacting rails 3 and 4, in Figure 4 and paragraph 61.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to retain Reference 1's two rail-and-shoe pairs in the charging arrangement configured for Reference 2's power level, because the disclosed pairs provide the conductive charging circuit while preserving the vehicle and contact interlocks described for that interface.
________________________________________
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) An arrangement as claimed in claim 6 wherein the shoe is sprung into contact with the conductive section.
Analysis
(L1) The claim 6 analysis is incorporated. Claim 6 identifies the conductive portion as a lateral section, so "the conductive section" in claim 10 refers to that previously introduced section. Reference 1 does not expressly disclose a spring urging its shoes 402/404 into contact with the rails. Reference 2 teaches a spring exerting force on a contact element toward a charging contact on source page 8, and contact elements 55/56 with springs 65 and contact element 74 with spring 81 in Figures 6-14. Applying the spring bias to Reference 1's vehicle-mounted shoe presses the shoe against the conductive rail.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to spring-bias Reference 1's shoe toward the rail using Reference 2's compliant contact mounting, because Reference 2 uses that bias to maintain contact pressure and accommodate contact-position variation. Applying the same mechanical bias to the rail-and-shoe interface predictably maintains electrical contact without changing the charging circuit or the contact-proving safety sequence.
________________________________________
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) A section of railway track including the charging arrangement of claim 1.
Analysis
(L1) The claim 1 analysis is incorporated. Reference 1 teaches a section of railway track comprising running rails 2a/2b and charging rails 3/4 in the charging zone of Figure 4 and paragraphs 57-61. The charging rails and associated supply and safety controls form the claim 1 arrangement in that railway-track section.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to retain Reference 1's railway-track charging-zone installation when configuring the arrangement for Reference 2's power level, because the track locates the train relative to the conductive rails and supports the disclosed short-stop charging operation.
________________________________________
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 7.
Claim Text
(L1) A concrete slab which includes the charging arrangement of claim 1.
Analysis
(L1) The claim 1 analysis is incorporated. Reference 1 does not expressly specify a concrete slab for its trackside charging installation. Reference 7 teaches concrete slab 3 supporting rails 2 by tie plates 5 and anchors 4 in Figures 5 and 8 and columns 1-4. Mounting Reference 1's charging-rail arrangement on this slab-track support provides a concrete slab including the charging arrangement.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to install Reference 1's charging arrangement on the concrete slab support of Reference 7, because the slab provides a stable railway foundation and maintains the rail geometry needed for shoe alignment. The charging rails, supply, and safety controls retain their charging and interlock functions on that known support.
________________________________________
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 7.
Claim Text
(L1) A portion of slab railway track including (L2) at least one conductive portion, (L3) at least one safety arrangement, and (L4) at least one electrical supply arrangement, wherein (L5) the or each conductive portion, the or each safety arrangement, and the or each electrical supply arrangement are configured to deliver charging to a mass transit vehicle at a level of at least 500 kW.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 7 teaches rails 2 mounted on concrete slab 3 by tie plates 5 and anchors 4 in Figures 5 and 8 and columns 1-4. (L2) Reference 1 teaches conductive charging rails 3/4 in Figures 4-5 and paragraphs 58-62. (L3) Reference 1 teaches position/contact sensing, modules 406/506, controller 621, power switches 606/614, pilot circuits, and handshake control in paragraphs 15-18, 64, and 80-90. (L4) Reference 1 teaches lineside storage apparatus 200, battery array 202, output 206, and modules 406/506 in Figures 4-5 and paragraphs 54-64. (L5) Reference 1 does not state at least 500 kW. Reference 2 teaches 375-750 kW and preferably 600 kW on source page 10.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to install Reference 1's charging rails, supply, and safety controls on the known slab railway track of Reference 7 and to use Reference 2's power level, because slab track is a durable known support for mass-transit rails and the combination predictably preserves the support, charging, and interlock functions while providing rapid charging.
________________________________________
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) A kit comprising (L2) at least one conductive portion, (L3) at least one safety arrangement, and (L4) at least one electrical supply arrangement, wherein (L5) the or each conductive portion, the or each safety arrangement, and the or each electrical supply arrangement are configured to deliver charging to a mass transit vehicle at a level of at least 500 kW.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 does not call its cooperative installation components a kit, but teaches the complete component set and their intended assembly in charging systems 400/500. Providing the known components together does not alter their structure or function. (L2) Reference 1 teaches conductive rails 3/4 in Figures 4-5 and paragraphs 58-62. (L3) Reference 1 teaches the sensor, contact-proving, modules 406/506, earth switching, controller 621, and handshake components in paragraphs 15-18, 64, and 80-90. (L4) Reference 1 teaches storage apparatus 200, battery array 202, output 206, and modules 406/506 in paragraphs 54-64. (L5) Reference 1 does not state at least 500 kW; Reference 2 teaches 375-750 kW and preferably 600 kW on source page 10.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to supply Reference 1's known cooperative charging components together as a kit and configure them for Reference 2's power level, because packaged provision predictably facilitates installation while each rail, safety component, and supply component performs its disclosed function.
________________________________________
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) A kit as claimed in claim 15 wherein the electrical supply arrangement is provided by a lineside charging system further comprising (L2) a battery array and (L3) safety arrangement to control the electrical supply.
Analysis
(L1) The claim 15 analysis is incorporated. Reference 1 teaches lineside energy storage apparatus 200 connected by output 206 to charging systems 400/500 in Figures 4-5 and paragraphs 54-64. (L2) Apparatus 200 contains battery array 202 and cells 210 in paragraph 55. (L3) Power control modules 406/506, controller 621, power switches 606/614, contact proving, and the handshake control whether the electrical supply energizes rail 4 in paragraphs 60-64 and 80-90.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include Reference 1's lineside battery array and safety-control components in the claim 15 kit, because the array predictably supplies high instantaneous charging power and the disclosed controller prevents energization until the vehicle and contacts are verified.
________________________________________
Conclusion
Claims 1-16 are pending and are rejected. The grounds are under 35 U.S.C. 103 for claims 1-12 and 14-16, and under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for claim 13. Claim 13 is not treated under 35 U.S.C. 103 because the subject matter incorporated by its conflicting dependency cannot be determined without speculation. Claim 8 is also objected to for the stated informality. The specification is objected to as stated above.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as stated below.
________________________________________
Art Considered but Not Applied
US 2021/0001900 A1 discloses a train vibration signature but not a track-mounted sensor using it for vehicle-presence detection.
US 2021/0278309 A1 discloses rail-mounted vibration sensing for rail condition, not mass-transit-vehicle presence.
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, Joseph Morano can be reached at (571) 272-6684. 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 3615
