DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action on the merits addressing the disclosure provided 03 August 2023.
Claims 1-12 are pending. Of those
Claims 1, 9 and 11 are independent; and
Claims 2-8, 10 and 12 are dependent
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements provided 03 August 2023 and 05 October 2023, are entered.
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 1-12 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 examiner notes numerous issues under this heading. The claims must clearly set forth the metes and bounds the limitations presented. Some of the more noticeable issues include when presenting a limitation (e.g., widget) it must initially be preceded by “a” or “an” (e.g., a widget). Each time the same limitation is subsequently referenced, either in the same claim or dependent claim, it must be preceded by "the" or "said" (e.g., the widget or said widget). Further, claim limitations should be referenced the same throughout the claim language (e.g., a limitation directed to a “pipe” should be referenced as “pipe" throughout the claim for consistency and not be changed or have added language such as “hollow pipe” or “tubular pipe”.)
Below is a reproduction of the claims with the examiner’s comments in bold italics. The examiner may not address each instance of repeat matters for brevity. Due to the nature of the language presented, the claims are considered obviously informal pursuant to MPEP 702.01.
Claim 1: A road stud with improved fastening structure comprised of a one-piece main body having a top surface and a base; wherein the top surface of the main body shows (indefinite as to the metes and bounds of “shows” – this term is presented throughout the claims and the examiner will not address each instance of use of this term):
at least one housing area on at least one of its longitudinal sides (indefinite as to what “its” references; “longitudinal sides” is a first example of lacking antecedent basis) for the placement of the at least one reflective media (“the at least one reflective media” lacks antecedent basis),
at least two handling cavities at their opposite cross-sectional ends (indefinite as to what “their” references; “cross-sectional ends” is an additional example of lacking antecedent basis); and
wherein the bottom surface (lacks antecedent basis) of the base has:
a plurality of side openings (indefinite as to how a bottom surface can have a “side opening” as claimed) distributed at both longitudinal ends (“both longitudinal ends” lacks antecedent basis, also unclear if this is the same or different as “longitudinal ends” previously referenced) of the base;
a plurality of edges distributed over the entire bottom surface (lacks antecedent basis) of the base (indefinite as written as to how edges are distributed over a surface as claimed); and
at least two longitudinal anchoring channels that cross, from end to end (lacks antecedent basis; indefinite as to what “end to end” references), the entire bottom surface of the base; characterized in that,
each longitudinal anchoring channel (lacks antecedent basis) is divided by at least one perpendicular cross-sectional support that increases the compression strength of the road stud (indefinite as to the metes and bounds of the support and how it increases the compression strength) and improves the adherence (lacks antecedent basis) of the adhesive (an additional example of lacking antecedent basis) to the interior (lacks antecedent basis) of each anchoring channel (lacks antecedent basis); and
a plurality of primary and secondary tensors defined by vaulted cavities (lacks antecedent basis) that are distributed in the central part of the bottom surface of the base, and that comply with the function (indefinite as to how something can “comply with the function” as written) of increasing its thickness (indefinite as to what “its” references) in order to balance the impact strengths (lacks antecedent basis; indefinite as to what “in order to balance the impact strength” references and as to the metes and bounds of this limitation).
Claim 2: The road stud of claim 1, characterized in that the inner walls of the longitudinal anchoring channels and of the perpendicular crossbeams (lacks antecedent basis) are angled walls to improve adhesive adhesion (indefinite as written as to how an angled wall improves adhesion; indefinite as to with respect to what the walls are angled).
Claim 3: The road stud of claim 1, characterized in that the side openings of the base are separated from each other by perpendicular supports (lacks antecedent basis) with angled walls (lacks antecedent basis; indefinite as to with respect to what the walls are angled).
Claim 4: The road stud of claim 1, characterized in that the top surface of the main body of the road stud has at least one QR Identification Code (objected to as “QR” should be spelled in its entirety when initially presented for clarity).
Claim 5: The road stud of claim 4, characterized in that the QR Identification Code is located within at least one handling cavity (indefinite as presented as “at least two handling cavities” is initially presented, so lacks antecedent basis).
Claim 6: The road stud of claim 1, characterized in that the top surface of the main body of the road stud has rounded edges that reduce the impact stress exerted by the vehicle tires (“the vehicle tires” lacks antecedent basis) on the road stud.
Claim 7: The road stud of claim 1, characterized in that each housing (“each housing” lacks antecedent basis; further indefinite as written, as “housing area” is initially presented)) has a stepped perimeter frame inside (indefinite with respect to what “inside” references) for the placement of the reflective media.
Claim 8: The road stud of claim 1, characterized in that each reflective media (an additional example of lacking antecedent basis) has visible edges (lacks antecedent basis; indefinite as with respect to what the edges are visible) for greater reflectivity (indefinite as written as to how a visible edge results in “greater reflectivity”).
Regarding Independent Claims 9 and 11 and dependent claims 10 and 12, the claims are replete with either identical issues or substantially similar issues previously addressed, which the examiner will not address at this time. Applicant is strongly encouraged to review MPEP 608.01 for general claim construction.
Citation of Prior Art
Due to the extent of the rejections under 35 US 112 and lack of clarity of claim language, the examiner is unable to properly interpret the claim language to apply art. Upon cursory search and review of the disclosure, including the drawings, the examiner cites the following:
Wong (U.S. Patent 10,490,065 B2)
Lee (U.S. Des. 678,099 S)
Rajendran et al. (U.S. Publication 2020/0370253 A1)
Snagel et al. (U.S. Publication 2004/0247387 A1)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM V GILBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-9055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0800-0430 Eastern.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571.272.6928. 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.
/WILLIAM V GILBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993