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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “processing device … the wear condition … to be determined”, in Claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 4-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 6, there is lack of antecedent basis for the limitation, “the drill holes” This appears to be due to typographical error. Thus, in claim 1, line 6 “the drill holes” should be changed to —the at least two drill holes—.
In claim 2, line 6, there is lack of antecedent basis for the limitation, “the temperature” This appears to be due to typographical error. Thus, in claim 2, line 6 “the temperature” should be changed to —a temperature—.
In claim 4, line 6, there is lack of antecedent basis for the limitation, “the upper side” This appears to be due to typographical error. Thus, in claim 4, line 6 “the upper side” should be changed to —an upper side—.
In claim 5, line 4, there is lack of antecedent basis for the limitation, “several drill holes” This appears to be due to typographical error. Thus, in claim 5, line 4 “several drill holes” should be changed to —several drill holes of the at least two drill holes—.
In claim 6, line 3, there is lack of antecedent basis for the limitation, “per drill hole” This appears to be due to typographical error. Thus, in claim 6, line 3 “per drill hole” should be changed to —per drill hole of the at least two drill holes—.
In claim 7, line 4, there is lack of antecedent basis for the limitation, “at least one drill hole”. This appears to be due to typographical error. Thus, in claim 7, line 4 “at least one drill hole” should be changed to —the at least one drill hole of the at least two drill holes—.
In claim 8, lines 3-4, there is lack of antecedent basis for the limitation, “the drill hole”. This appears to be due to typographical error. Thus, in claim 8, lines 3-4 “the drill hole and is insertable in the drill hole” should be changed to —the at least one drill hole of the at least two drill holes and is insertable in the at least one drill hole—.
In claim 9, lines 3 and 6, there is lack of antecedent basis for the limitation, “three drill holes”. This appears to be due to typographical error. Thus, in claim 9, line 3 “three drill holes” should be changed to —three drill holes of the at least two drill holes—. Also in claim 9, lines 6 “the three drill holes” should be changed to —the three drill holes of the at least two drill holes—.
In claim 10, line 4, there is lack of antecedent basis for the limitation, “at least two drill holes are unfilled and the drill hole”. This appears to be due to typographical error. Thus, in claim 10, line 4 “at least two drill holes and the drill hole” should be changed to —the at least two drill holes are unfilled and the at least one drill hole—.
In claim 11, line 10, there is lack of antecedent basis for the limitation, “the sensor device” This appears to be due to typographical error. Thus, in claim 11, line 10 “the sensor device” should be changed to —a sensor device—.
In claim 11, line 6, there is lack of antecedent basis for the limitation, “the drill holes” This appears to be due to typographical error. Thus, in claim 11, line “the drill holes” should be changed to —the at least two drill holes —.
In claim 12, line 3, there is lack of antecedent basis for the limitation, “the temperature” This appears to be due to typographical error. Thus, in claim 12, line 3 “the temperature” should be changed to —a temperature—.
In claims 12-15, there is lack of antecedent basis for the limitation, “The method” This appears to be due to typographical error in the dependency. Claim 11 first introduces “A method” not claim 10. Thus, claims 12-15 should be dependent on claim 11 not claim 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “processing device” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
More specifically, the Examiner notes the element (processing device … the wear condition … to be determined) is subject to interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is not described in the Specification so as to provide the structure or equivalents thereof that perform the corresponding function of the claims identified in the claims subject to such interpretation. Since claim 1 is subject to this deficiency, the elements subject to such are not accompanied by sufficient structural features so as to define what the corresponding structure performing the claimed function is, and their dependent claims are not cured and do not cure such deficiency, then all claims are found to contain subject matter which is not described in the Specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 2-10 and 16-18, the claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement since they are dependents of claim 1, and, thus, they all carry the same written description deficiency as that of their parent claim. Even though Claims 12-15 are depended of claim 1, Claims 12-15 are objected due to typographical error in the dependency, since Claim 11 first introduces “A method” not claim 10 “A Measuring system”. Thus, the methods of claims 12-15 should be dependent on claim 11 not claim 10. Therefore, claims 12-15 are being interpreted as dependent of claim 11 and are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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 1-10, 12 and 14-18 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “processing device” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The Specification makes no mention whatsoever of any structure or equivalents thereof for performing the corresponding claimed function for any of these elements and none of the elements are accompanied by sufficient structural features so as to define the corresponding structure performing each of the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
For purposes of examination and until Applicant either overcome or cures the deficiency above, the Examiner will interpret claim limitations “processing device” as hardware-implemented component capable of manipulating data, such as a CPU, microprocessor, digital signal processor (DSP), processor and/or any kind of configuration of some sort.
Regarding Claims 2-10 and 16-18, the claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite since they are dependents of indefinite claim 1, and their limitations do not overcome the indefiniteness issues of their parent claim. Even though Claims 12-15 are depended of claim 1, Claims 12-15 are objected due to typographical error in the dependency, since Claim 11 first introduces “A method” not claim 10 “A Measuring system”. Thus, the methods claims 12-15 should be dependent on claim 11 not claim 10. Therefore claims 12-15 are being interpreted as dependent of claim 11 and are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding Claim 2, line 3, the claims cited the phrase "preferably" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, the limitations tied to the phrase "preferably” will not be considered as part of the claimed invention until this deficiency is cured.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim in line 5, recite the term “a drill hole of the at least two drill holes” that renders the claim indefinite. However, claim 1 line 13 recite the term “at least one drill hole of the at least two drill holes”. Such as, it is unclear if “a drill hole of the at least two drill holes” in claim 2 is the same drill hole as “at least one drill hole of the at least two drill holes”.
For purposes of examination and until Applicant either overcome or cures the deficiency above, the Examiner will interpret claim limitations “a drill hole of the at least two drill holes in claim 2 as the same element as in claim 1 “at least one drill hole of the at least two drill holes”.
Regarding Claim 3, the claim in line 5, recite the term “the drill hole”, at whose drill-opening the temperature sensor is disposed” that renders the claim indefinite. Since claim 3 depend of claim 1 and claim 1 do not comprise the limitation “a temperature sensor” therefore there is lack of antecedent basis for the limitation temperature sensor. Moreover, claim 2 recite the limitation “a temperature sensor” Such as, it is unclear if claim 3 depend of claim 1 or claim 2. Additionally claim 1 line 13 recite the term “at least one drill hole of the at least two drill holes” and claim 2 recite the term “a drill hole of the at least two drill holes”. Therefore, it is unclear if “the drill hole” of claim 3 is the drill hole as “at least one drill hole of the at least two drill holes” in claim 1, “a drill hole of the at least two drill holes” in claim 2 or an additional drill hole.
For purposes of examination and until Applicant either overcome or cures the deficiency above, the Examiner will interpret claim 3 as dependent of claim 2. Also the examiner will interpret the limitations “the drill hole” in claim 3, “at least one drill hole of the at least two drill holes” in claim 1 and “a drill hole of the at least two drill holes” in claim 2, as the same element.
Regarding Claim 12, line 4, the claims cited the phrase "preferably" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, the limitations tied to the phrase "preferably” will not be considered as part of the claimed invention until this deficiency is cured.
Regarding Claim 14, line 4, the claims cited the phrase "in particular" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, the limitations tied to the phrase "preferably” will not be considered as part of the claimed invention until this deficiency is cured.
Regarding Claim 15, line 4, the claims cited the phrase "preferably" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, the limitations tied to the phrase "preferably” will not be considered as part of the claimed invention until this deficiency is cured.
Regarding Claim 18, line 1, the claims cited the phrase "in particular" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, the limitations tied to the phrase "preferably” will not be considered as part of the claimed invention until this deficiency is cured.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herrmann et al. (US 2007/0272506 A1, included in IDS on 03/18/2026), hereafter Herrmann
Regarding claim 11, Herrmann teaches a method for measuring a wear condition, [0020] of a contact element (Figs. 1-10 element 2) of a contact strip (Fig. 2 combination of elements 2 + 7) for a catenary-bound power supply of vehicles, [0039] with a measuring system (monitoring unit, [0008]), the contact strip (2 + 7) having a contact strip carrier (Fig. 2 element 7) and the contact element (2) held on the contact strip carrier (7), as shown in Figs. 2 and 10, “A base surface 22 of a contact body 2 is attached to a shaped surface 71 of a support 7”, [0039]),, and
at least two drill holes (Fig. 3 element 3 and Figs. 9-10, combination of elements 31 + 33, “hole entrance opening 33 to the hole bottom 31” that generate a blind hole 3, [0039]) being introduced in the contact strip (2 + 7), (as shown in Figs 6a-b, 9-10 the “contact strip 2 + 7 comprises several blind holes 3 generated by elements 31 + 33, [0016, 0047],
the drill holes (3) passing through the contact strip carrier (7) and forming at least one blind hole (Fig. 3 element 3, [0039]) in the contact element (2), (as shown in Fig. 7 the blind hole pass through element 7 into element 2, [0044])
characterized in that an incidence of optical radiation in the sensor device (Fig. 9 elements 8, 9 and/or 5, [0044, 0048]), is registered by means of a photodetector (8 “photodiode and/or camera 9) of the sensor device (5+ 8 + 9, [0020, 0044]), a light channel ( the light channel is generated by element 3), through which the optical radiation is conducted to the photodetector (8), [0044, 0048]), being formed by at least one drill hole (3) of the at least two drill holes upon reaching a certain wear condition of the contact element (2) and the wear condition of the contact element (2) being determined on the basis of the incident optical radiation by means of a processing device, (“processing unit”, [0048, claim 22]), of the measuring system, [0020, 0048].
Regarding claim 13, Herrmann teaches the method according to claim 11, characterized in that the processing device [0048, claim 22], continuously registers and stores the measured values from the sensor device (Fig. 9 elements 8, 9 and/or 5, [0044, 0048]), in regular temporal intervals and/or following changes, [0044, 0047, 0048].
Regarding claim 14, Herrmann teaches the method according to claim 11, characterized in that a wear degree of the contact strip (Fig. 2 combination of elements 2 + 7), in particular of the contact element (Figs. 1-10 element 2), [0044, 0047, 0048], (Additionally, the limitations tied to the phrase “preferably” will not be considered as part of the claimed invention as explained above in Section 112(b)), is determined from the measured values from the sensor device (Fig. 9 elements 8, 9 and/or 5 by means of the processing device, [0048, claim 22].
Regarding claim 15, Herrmann teaches the method according to claim 11, characterized in that the measured values of the sensor device (Fig. 9 elements 8, 9 and/or 5, [0044, 0048]) are transmitted, [0020-0021] preferably wireless (the limitations tied to the phrase “preferably” will not be considered as part of the claimed invention as explained above in Section 112(b)), from the sensor device (8, 9 and/or 5) to the processing device by means of a transmission device (transmission channel 6, [0022-0023, claims 18, 20-21], the processing device (“processing unit” “monitoring unit”, [0048, claim 22]), being physically spaced apart from the sensor device, [0039] or being integrated in the casing (10) of the sensor device (4).
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann et al. (US 2007/0272506 A1, included in IDS on 03/18/2026), hereafter Herrmann, in view of Craig et al. (US 2007/0000744 A1, included in IDS on 03/18/2026), hereafter Craig.
Regarding claim 12, Herrmann teaches the method according to claim 11.
Hermann fail to teach characterized in that the temperature of the contact element is registered by means of a temperature sensor of the sensor device, preferably by means of an infrared sensor.
However, Craig related to optical measuring devices for detecting wear and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches the temperature of the contact element (Figs. 2a-c element 10) is registered by means of a temperature sensor (Fig. 2a-c element 12) of the sensor device, [0057], preferably by means of an infrared sensor, (the limitations tied to the phrase “preferably” will not be considered as part of the claimed invention as explained above in Section 112(b)).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of Hermann by including the temperature of the contact element (31) is registered by means of a temperature sensor (44) of the sensor device (4), preferably by means of an infrared sensor (as taught by Craig) for several advantages such as: temperature signals from temperature sensors are used to give signals indicative of thermal overload conditions, and such signals allow to control the current flowing through the collector by switching off circuits, controlling subsidiary apparatus to reduce demand, or even by dropping the pantograph if necessary, thus increase the device efficiency, ([0085], Craig).
Claims 1, 4-6, 9 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann et al. (US 2007/0272506 A1, included in IDS on 03/18/2026), hereafter Herrmann, in view of Davis Brian (WO 2006/081610 A1, included in IDS on 03/18/2026), hereafter Davies.
Regarding claim 1, Herrmann teach a measuring system (monitoring unit, [0008]) for measuring a wear condition, [0020] of a contact element (Figs. 1-10 element 2) of a contact strip (Fig. 2 combination of elements 2 + 7) for a catenary-bound power supply of vehicles, [0039] with a sensor device (Fig. 9 elements 8, 9 and/or 5, [0044, 0048]),
the contact strip (2 + 7) having a contact strip carrier (Fig. 2 element 7) and the contact element (2) held on the contact strip carrier (7), as shown in Figs. 2 and 10, “A base surface 22 of a contact body 2 is attached to a shaped surface 71 of a support 7”, [0039]), and
at least two drill holes (Fig. 3 element 3 and Figs. 9-10, combination of elements 31 + 33, “hole entrance opening 33 to the hole bottom 31” that generate a blind hole 3, [0039]) being introduced in the contact strip (2 + 7), (as shown in Figs 6a-b, 9-10 the “contact strip 2 + 7 comprises several blind holes 3 generated by elements 31 + 33, [0016, 0047]
the drill holes (3) passing through the contact strip carrier (7) and forming at least one blind hole (Fig. 3 element 3, [0039]) in the contact element (2), (as shown in Fig. 7 the blind hole pass through element 7 into element 2, [0044])
an optical radiation being able to be registered by means of a photodetector (Fig. 9 elements 8 “photodiode” and/or “camera” 9) of the sensor device (5+ 8 + 9, [0020, 0044]), and
at least one drill hole (3) of the at least two drill holes forming a light channel ( the light channel is generated by element 3), upon reaching a certain wear condition of the contact element (2), [0020, 0048], the optical radiation striking the photodetector (8 “photodiode and/or camera 9) via the light channel, [0047-0048], and the measuring system comprising a processing device, [0048, claim 22], the wear condition of the contact element (2) being able to be determined from the registered optical radiation by means of the processing device, [0020, 0048].
Herrmann fail to teach characterized in that the sensor device of the measuring system is detachably fastened outside of the contact strip and below the contact strip carrier.
However, Davies related to optical measuring devices for detecting wear and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches the sensor device (Fig. 4-5 element 54) of the measuring system (Fig. 4-5 element 40) is detachably fastened outside of the contact strip (Fig. 4-5 element 12) and below the contact strip carrier (Figs. 4-5 element 15), (as shown in Figs. 4-5 element 54 is outside element 12 and below element 15, [Page 3, lines 28-44]).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hermann by including characterized in that the sensor device of the measuring system is detachably fastened outside of the contact strip and below the contact strip carrier. (as taught by Davies) for several advantages such as: the fastener allow to hold the sensor to the wear plate thus increase the device efficiency, ([Page 3, lines 28-44], Davies).
Regarding claim 4, Herrmann in the combination outlined above teaches the measuring system according to claim 1.
Hermann fail to teach the sensor device of the measuring system has a casing, which has an opening covering the at least two drill holes at the upper side abutting against the contact strip carrier and/or has several openings which are disposed at the upper side of the casing complementarily to the at least two drill holes in the contact strip.
Davies further teaches the sensor device (Figs. 4-5 element 54) of the measuring system (Figs. 4-5 element 40) has a casing (Figs. 4-5, combinations of elements 50 + 52 + 58) , which has an opening covering the at least two drill holes at the upper side abutting against the contact strip carrier and/or has several openings which are disposed at the upper side of the casing complementarily to the at least two drill holes in the contact strip, (Figs. 4-5 element 15), (as shown in Figs. 4-5, [Page 3, lines 28-44]). Even though the opening of each casing cover each drill hole individually, the opening do not cover the at least two drill holes. However, it is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions (see MPEP 2144.04 Section IV A-B and 2144.05 Section II-A), In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., .Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the opening of the casing of Davies to covered the at least two drill holes as result of routine optimization of expected results in order to facilitate easier access to the drill holes for servicing, inspection, or tool insertion without having to repeatedly reposition or entirely remove the casing cover.
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hermann by including the sensor device of the measuring system has a casing, which has an opening covering the at least two drill holes at the upper side abutting against the contact strip carrier and/or has several openings which are disposed at the upper side of the casing complementarily to the at least two drill holes in the contact strip, (as taught by Davies) for several advantages such as: the fastener allow to hold the sensor to the wear plate thus increase the device efficiency, ([Page 3, lines 28-44], Davies).
Regarding claim 5, Herrmann in the combination outlined above teaches the measuring system according to claim 1.
Hermann further teaches characterized in that several drill holes (Fig. 6a-b element 3) of differing depth, [0042-0043] form a light channel upon reaching a certain wear condition of the contact element (Fig. 6a-b element 2), [0048].
Regarding claim 6, Herrmann in the combination outlined above teaches the measuring system according to claim 5.
Hermann further teaches a photodetector (Figs. 9-10 element 8) is provided per drill hole (Figs. 9-10 element 31 + 33 that generate element 3), [0047], Additionally, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). MPEP 2144.04), which each form a light channel upon reaching a certain wear condition of the contact element (Fig. 9-10 element 2), [0048].
Regarding claim 9, Herrmann in the combination outlined above teaches the measuring system according to claim 1.
Hermann further teaches characterized in that three drill holes (Figs. 6a-b element 3) of differing depth are introduced in the contact strip (Fig. 6a-b combination of elements 2 + 7), pass through the contact strip carrier (Fig. 6a-b element 7) and form three blind bores in the contact element (Figs. 6a-b element 2), [0042], the three drill holes (3) forming a light channel, through which the optical radiation strikes the photodetector (Fig. 9-10 element 8), upon reaching a certain wear condition of the contact element (2), [0047-0048].
Regarding claim 16, Herrmann in the combination outlined above teaches a contact strip having a measuring system disposed thereon, ([abstract, 0008, 0019], Herrmann) according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Herrmann in the combination outlined above teaches a current collector (pantograph, Hermann) for a catenary-bound power supply of vehicles, ([0008], Herrmann) comprising a positioning device having a contact strip, ([0008, 0037], Herrmann) according to claim 16 disposed thereon.
Regarding claim 18, Herrmann in the combination outlined above teaches a vehicle, (electrically driven vehicle, [0008], Herrmann), in particular a rail vehicle (Additionally, the limitations tied to the phrase “in particular” will not be considered as part of the claimed invention as explained above in Section 112(b)), having a current collector, ([0008, 0037], Herrmann) according to claim 17.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann, in view of Davis and further in view of Craig et al. (US 2007/0000744 A1, included in IDS on 03/18/2026), hereafter Craig.
Regarding claims 2-3, Herrmann in the combination outlined above teaches the measuring system.
Herrmann further teaches:
(claim 2) the sensor device (Fig. 9 elements 8, 9 and/or 5, [0044, 0048]) being disposed such in the area of a drill-hole opening (Figs. 9-10 elements 33) of a drill hole (Fig. 3 element 3) of the at least two drill holes, [0039].
(claim 3) the drill hole (Fig. 3 element 3) at whose drill-hole opening (Fig. 10 element 33), the sensor is disposed (Fig. 10 elements 5, 8-9), (as shown in Fig. 10), extends through the contact strip carrier (Fig. 10 element 7), to the underside of the contact element (Fig. 10 element 2), (as shown in Figs. 5, 7 and 10), [0039, 0044].
Hermann fail to teach:
(claim 2) the sensor device has a temperature sensor, preferably an infrared sensor, the temperature sensor being disposed such in the area of a drill-hole opening of a drill hole that the temperature of the contact element is able to be registered by means of the temperature sensor,
(claim 3) the drill hole at whose drill-hole opening the temperature sensor is disposed,
However, Craig related to optical measuring devices for detecting wear and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches
(claim 2) the sensor device has a temperature sensor (Fig. 2a-c element 12), preferably an infrared sensor (the limitations tied to the phrase “preferably” will not be considered as part of the claimed invention as explained above in Section 112(b)), the temperature sensor (12) being disposed such in the area of a drill-hole opening of a drill hole, (the cylindrical cavity generated by the channel machined is interpreted as the drill hole, [0058]) that the temperature of the contact element (Figs. 2a-c element 10) is able to be registered by means of the temperature sensor (12), [0057].
(claim 3) the drill hole at whose drill-hole opening the temperature sensor (Fig. 2a-c element 12), is disposed, [0057-0058].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of Hermann by including the sensor device has a temperature sensor, preferably an infrared sensor, the temperature sensor being disposed such in the area of a drill-hole opening of a drill hole that the temperature of the contact element is able to be registered by means of the temperature sensor, the drill hole at whose drill-hole opening the temperature sensor is disposed, (as taught by Craig) for several advantages such as: temperature signals from temperature sensors are used to give signals indicative of thermal overload conditions, and such signals allow to control the current flowing through the collector by switching off circuits, controlling subsidiary apparatus to reduce demand, or even by dropping the pantograph if necessary, thus increase the device efficiency, ([0085], Craig).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 7, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose, teach, or suggest or render obvious “characterized in that at least one drill hole is filled with a temperature-resistant and transparent filling element”, in the combination required by the claim.
Regarding Claim 10, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose, teach, or suggest or render obvious “characterized in that at least two drill holes are unfilled and the drill hole engaging in the contact element with the least depth is filled with a temperature-resistant and transparent filling element”, in the combination required by the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fleischhauer et al. (US 20160091547 A1), discloses a wear detection system, having an image processing device and a contact strip, as well as to a method for monitoring the wear of a contact strip for a current supply to vehicles based on contact wires.
Kuo et al. (US 20140202816 A1), discloses a collector device of an electric train comprising a resistance between the graphite skateboard and the contact surface of the trolley wire becomes small in order to reduce a collector current loss of the electric train, and thereby suppress an occurrence of the electric arc.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS G PEREZ-GUZMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3904. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm 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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/CARLOS PEREZ-GUZMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights