DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 37-60 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.
The recitations of “curved or curvilinear concave surfaces” in the independent claims are indefinite because it is not clearly recited if the “curved” surface is required to be concave. Based upon the subsequent recitations of “the concave surface” with respect to the aforementioned recitations, the claims have been taken such that the recitations of “curved” have each been treated as “curved concave surface.”
Claim 48 recites the limitation "the sound sensor" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the sound sensor is optional only (i.e., not required) in parent claim 46.
Claims 58 and 60 are indefinite because the recitations, “the first effect is to direct the vehicle to veer in a direction…” are narrative, indefinite and the scope is not ascertainable.
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.
Claims 37-44, 49-55 and 57-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimazaki et al. (JP 5215982 B2) in view of Kisner et al. (U.S. Patent 6,259,374)
Shimazaki discloses a recessed directional rumble strip having a descending surface (42b) projecting downwardly from a top surface of a pavement (1) and a rumble face (42a) descending from the top surface of the pavement (Figures 6A-6C). While some of the embodiments appear to have curved surfaces, they do not appear to be concave. Kisner teaches equivalence among different shapes, including convex and concave (column 10, lines 4-13, for example), in recessed rumble strips (Figures 1A and 1B, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Shimazaki as claimed since, not only does Kisner teach that different shapes are obvious alternatives, but also because the specification provides no criticality in this configuration. Also see the notes in the ‘Response to Arguments’ section, below.
Regarding claims 38, 39, 51 and 52, see Figure 6A, for example.
Regarding claim 40, see Figure 4, for example.
Regarding claim 41, Shimazaki teaches an impact edge (Q1).
Shimazaki operates in the manner of claims 42, 43 and 49.
Regarding claim 50, Shimazaki discloses using a plurality of strips.
Regarding claim 53, there are two angles (γ and δ) and these angles appear to be within the range of claim 44 (Figures 6A and 6C). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any angles desired in order to cause the intended effects, which are the same effects as the present invention.
Regarding new claims 58-60, a predetermined angle would naturally be used in order to obtain a strip suitable for its intended purpose. Further, and for that reason, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a predetermined angle. Note that each of Shimazaki and Kisner position a plurality of rumble strips relative to one another.
Claims 45-48 and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimazaki et al. and Kisner, as applied above, and further in view of White (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0146001).
Shimazaki does not a sensor. White teaches positioning rumble strips (320) in conjunction with sensors (100, 200) in order to prevent vehicles from traveling the wrong way down a road. Because this is the same general purpose as Shimazaki, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used sensors in conjunction with Shimazaki in order to further prevent vehicles from traveling in the wrong direction on a roadway.
Regarding claims 46 and 47, White is at least within the scope of a directional sensor.
Regarding claim 48, note the 112 rejection, above. The examiner takes Official notice that sound sensors for obtaining traffic information on roadways are known and, based on the current specification, an equivalent sensor to the other species. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any known roadway sensor in order to obtain and distribute information as desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Based upon the numerous embodiments, and including a lack of even a drawing of the species of claim 39, for example, it is clear that there is no criticality of the newly added recitations. The amendments merely narrow the species to a few embodiments, again, at least one of which is so non-critical that it has not even been illustrated among the many species.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0265783 teaches using acoustic receivers in conjunction with roadway warnings.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY S HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-6989. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7:30.
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, Thomas Will can be reached at 571272-6998. 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.
/GARY S HARTMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671