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 .
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "10" and "30" have both been used to designate the road with travel direction towards the top of the page in Figure 1. Additionally, “20” and “40” have both been used to designate the road with the travel direction towards the right side of the page in Figure 1. 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. 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the first two lines of the second paragraph, “the two first upper accessorial bridges (1) are respectively connected to both sides of the upper two-way straight lane” was already recited in the first paragraph of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites “the virtual roundabouts formed…”, however this limitation requires the reader to be looking at Figure 1 and is not specified in the claims. It appears Applicant intended “the first lower relief road and the first upper accessorial bridges”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
In the last clause of claim 1, Applicant claims the right-turn lanes of the forked roads “diverging from the left side of an one-way inward straight lane to connect with an adjacent forked road from the outside”. This limitation only works when one is looking at the intersection from a plan view (bird’s eye view) and rotating so that the road being described is at the top of the page. It is noted that this limitation does not make sense from the view of a driver driving in the interchange.
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.
Claim 2 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 2 has been amended to recite “the number of lanes of the first forked road (10), the third forked road (30), the second forked road (20), the fourth forked road (40), the fifth forked road (50), the sixth forked road (60), the seventh forked road (70) and the eighth forked road (80) is a two-way road with six lanes”. This is written as if all of the roads combine as one two-way road with six lanes, which is not in accordance with Applicant’s specification and drawings; in other words, the number of all of the lanes of the eight forked roads is not six lanes.
Additionally for claim 2, even if Applicant intended to claim each of the roads to be a two-way road with six lanes, this is not in accordance with Applicant’s drawings, which show the first forked road (10) is one way and the third forked road (30) is one way in the opposite direction.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 108797248 A (hereinafter will be referred to as “CN ‘248”).
Regarding claim 1, CN ‘248 teaches an eight-way interchange (Figure 4), comprises a first forked road (going from B to A), a third forked road (going from A to B), a second forked road (going from C to D), a fourth forked road (going from D to C), a fifth forked road (E), a sixth forked road (F), a seventh forked road (G), and an eighth forked road (H);
the first forked road (going from B to A), the third forked road (going from A to B), the second forked road (going from C to D), and the fourth forked road (going from D to C) constituting a cross overpass, the first forked road and the third forked road constituting an upper (shown in Figure 4) two-way straight (direct access) lane, the second forked road and the fourth forked road constituting a lower (shown in Figure 4) two-way straight (direct access) lane, the upper two-way straight lane includes two first upper accessorial bridges (vertical portion between E and H and vertical portion between F and G) and two first upper downward left-turn relief roads (road going from B to C and road going from A to D), and the two first upper accessorial bridges are respectively connected to both sides of the upper two-way straight lane (shown in Figure 4);
the lower two-way straight lane includes two first lower relief roads (road going from C to B and road going from D to A) and two first lower upward left-turn relief roads (road going from C to A and road going from D to B), the first lower upward left-turn relief roads are respectively connected with the inner sides of the two first lower relief roads and the two first upper accessorial bridges (since everything is connected together in the interchange), the two first upper downward left-turn relief roads are respectively connected with the two first upper accessorial bridges and the two first lower relief roads (since everything is connected together in the interchange);
the two first upper accessorial bridges (vertical portion between E and H and vertical portion between F and G) are respectively connected to both sides of the upper two-way straight lane, and the two first upper downward left-turn relief roads (road going from B to C and road going from A to D) are respectively connected with the inner sides of the first two upper accessorial bridges (shown in Figure 4);
the first forked road (going from B to A), the third forked road (going from A to B), the second forked road (going from C to D), the fourth forked road (going from D to C), the fifth forked road (E), the sixth forked road (F), the seventh forked road (G), and the eighth forked road (H) all having a right-turn lane diverging from the left side of an one-way inward straight lane to connect with an adjacent forked road from the outside.
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘248 as applied above to claim 1, alone.
Regarding claim 2, while CN ‘248 fails to disclose that any of the roads has six lanes or two right-turn lanes, 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). The number of lanes is obviously a matter of common traffic engineering based on the amount of traffic to traverse the interchange; the more vehicles that will be using the interchange, the more lanes would be necessary. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the number of lanes to be six based on common traffic engineering. While the resulting combination fails to disclose that the number of right-turn lanes diverging from each of the forked roads is two, the number of right-turn lanes is obviously a matter of common traffic engineering. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the number of right-turn lanes to be two based on common traffic engineering.
Regarding claim 3, while CN ‘248 fails to disclose that the number of lanes on the first lower relief road and the two first lower upward left-turn relief roads is four, 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). The number of lanes is obviously a matter of common traffic engineering based on the amount of traffic to traverse the interchange; the more vehicles that will be using the interchange, the more lanes would be necessary. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the number of lanes on the first lower relief road and the two first lower upward left-turn relief roads to be four based on common traffic engineering. While the resulting combination fails to disclose that the virtual roundabouts formed have corresponding traffic signs, the Examiner takes Official Notice that traffic signs are old and well-known to provide warnings or communicate information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination to include corresponding traffic signs to be able to warn or communicate information to drivers driving in the interchange.
Regarding claim 4, while CN ‘248 fails to disclose that each of the forked roads are provided with corresponding traffic signs of crossing prohibition, CN ‘248 explicitly discloses that the ground layer is set for pedestrians for “protection benefit” (under “Summary of the Invention”) and that “there is no interference” (Abstract). The Examiner takes Official Notice that traffic signs are old and well-known to be able to provide warnings or communicate information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination to include corresponding traffic signs on each of the forked roads to warn pedestrians of crossing prohibition to protect the pedestrians.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s only argument is that the rejections under 35 USC § 112 have been overcome by amending the claims. However, a very substantial number of limitations have been deleted with this amendment. As was stated in the previous rejection, if Applicant amends the claims to overcome the 112 rejections in a way that changes the scope of the claims, allowability will be reconsidered. The claims have been amended to be much broader.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited sheet.
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 KATHERINE J CHU whose telephone number is 571-272-7819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 9:30-5:30.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. 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.
/KATHERINE J CHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights