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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(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.
Claims 1 and 18 (and therefore all of the dependent claims including 2, 8-9, 11-13, and 19-20 which depend from claim 1) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “a plurality of supports, …each support is directly attachable to a driving surface…”. With this amendment, the only embodiment that meets this limitation is the one shown in Figures 13C-15B, most clearly shown in 14A, which includes two separate rails as the plurality of supports. However, claim 1 also recites “wherein at least two of the plurality of channels are configured to accommodate at least one of the plurality of supports”. The limitation “at least one” of the plurality of supports requires only one support. There is no disclosure that the embodiment of Figures 13C-15B can meet the limitation of two channels accommodating one support, i.e. one rail. And the embodiment that meets two channels accommodating one support is the one shown in Figures 9-11, but if the ribs are considered the plurality of supports, then they do not directly attach to a driving surface because there is a bottom plate connecting all of the ribs. Applicant appears to be mixing the embodiments of Figures 9-11 and Figures 13C-15B.
Claim 18 recites “the plurality of supports are configured to be secured to the driving surface with a bolt.” There is no disclosure that one bolt can secure the plurality of supports; there are two spaced apart rails. For purposes of examination, it will be assumed that Applicant intended “each of the plurality of supports is configured to be secured to the driving surface with a bolt.”
Correction is required.
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 1-2, 8-9, 11, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 2571395 A1 (hereinafter will be referred to as “FR ‘395”) in view of Vasselli, US 2,461,859 and Fischer, US 2,015,031.
Regarding claim 1, FR ‘395 teaches a speed bump section for use in a modular speed bump, the speed bump section (Figures 1, 2, and 3) comprising:
an end configured to engage with another speed bump section the end being a male end (right side of section as shown in Figure 2) having a first plurality of angled sides (Figure 2); and
an opposing end (left side of section as shown Figure 2).
While FR ‘395 discloses a truncated triangular end interlocking with an inverse truncated triangular end of another section, but fails to explicitly disclose a male connector as claimed, Vasselli teaches a joint to connect two elements with a triangular/male end ending in an arrowhead section (circled portion in reproduction of Vasselli’s Figure 2 provided below with Examiner’s annotation) extending laterally from the male end, the arrowhead section comprising four sides including two minor sides extending from the male end in a divergent manner (underside of arrowhead diverging from male end) and two major sides, each major side extending from one minor side in a convergent manner, the major sides terminating at a vertex (tip of arrowhead).
PNG
media_image1.png
177
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It has been held that known work in one field may prompt variations of it for use in a different one based on design incentives. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify FR 395’s male end to be a male connector comprising an arrowhead section extending laterally from the male end, the arrowhead section comprising four sides including two minor sides extending from the male end in a divergent manner and two major sides, each major side extending from one minor side in a convergent manner, the major sides terminating at a vertex in view of Vasselli’s disclosure as an alternate shape of a similar mating joint.
While FR ‘395 only discloses “fixing to the ground can help the anti-movement system” (the page numbered “4” with English translation, lines 149-150) but fails to provide any details, Fischer teaches a speed bump and discloses a channel extending along the length of the speed bump from one end to the opposite end for receiving a support (13; Figure 5), the support being directly attachable to a driving surface (road pavement; column 1 lines 1-4 and column 2 lines 18-21). 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 by including a channel extending along a length of the speed bump section from the end to the opposite end to accommodate a support that is directly attachable to a roadway in view of Fischer’s disclosure as an alternate way to attach a speed bump to a roadway. While the resulting combination includes one channel and one support, it has been held that duplication of parts for a multiplied effect is a matter of obviousness that is within the general skill of a worker in the art. 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 a plurality of channels and a plurality of supports for greater security. The resulting combination includes at least two of the plurality of channels being configured to accommodate at least one (two) of the plurality of supports.
While Fischer discloses releasably and directly attaching the support to the speed bump (fitting into the channel) but the resulting combination fails to disclose a nut and a bolt, FR ‘395 further discloses that a metal profile can be received in a bottom channel and that the metal profile can be connected to the speed bump section by a nut and a bolt (I+M to attach metal profile O to speed bump section; Figures 3 and 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each support of the resulting combination to include a fastener comprising a nut and a bolt in view of FR ‘395’s further disclosure to ensure that each support is locked in place. The resulting combination includes each support being releasably and directly attachable to the speed bump section with a fastener comprising a nut and a bolt.
Regarding claim 2, in view of FR ‘395 and Vasselli teaching abutting, mating edges (FR ‘395’s Figures 1 and 2; Vasselli’s Figures 2 and 3), the resulting combination makes obvious that the opposing end of the speed bump section is also configured to engage with another speed bump section and is one of a female end having a second plurality of angled sides configured to receive a said male end, and makes obvious to further provide a female connector comprising a recess (in view of Vasselli in the resulting combination) configured to receive the male connector of another speed bump section, the recess having a reciprocal shape to the arrowhead section of the male connector in order to have abutting, mating ends. The resulting combination includes the end being a male end and the opposing end being a female end.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, the claim limitations are not required since it depends from an alternative in claim 1 which is not required (claim 1 only requires one end with either a male connector or female connector, and the rejection includes the male connector).
Regarding claim 11, while the resulting combination fails to disclose the limitation claimed, it is known to have speed bumps be built according to the standards of the jurisdiction in which the speed bumps are to be installed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the maximum thickness of the speed bump section be from 25 mm to 100 mm if that is required by the jurisdiction in which the speed bump section is to be installed.
Regarding claim 18, the resulting combination includes each of the plurality of supports being configured to be secured to a driving surface with a bolt (Fischer discloses the metal anchors 2 having a head 3 which may be detachably secured with screw threads and locked with nuts 12, the metal anchors 2 are clearly bolts).
Regarding claim 20, the resulting combination makes obvious a modular speed bump comprising a plurality of the speed bump sections of claim 1 in view of FR’395’s Figure 1 which shows a plurality of speed bump sections to form a modular speed bump.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR ‘395 in view of Vasselli, and Fischer as applied to claims 1-2, further in view of Niziolek, US 2011/0217116 A1.
Regarding claim 12, while the resulting combination from claim 1 fails to disclose that a cross-sectional profile of the speed bump section is dome shaped, Niziolek teaches a segmented speed bump and shows a cross-sectional profile of a speed bump section being dome shaped (Figure 5). 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 cross-sectional shape of the speed bump section of the resulting combination to be dome shaped in view of Niziolek’s disclosure based on design choice.
Regarding claim 13, while the resulting combination from claim 2 fails to disclose one or more channels being configured to accommodate at least one of a cable, a hose, or a wire, Niziolek teaches a segmented speed bump and shows a plurality of ducts (13, 23) and discloses speed bumps can reduce the speed of vehicles as well as to protect wire running over roadway ([0001]) and may be used “for temporal or constant protection of wires and other installations, for example sound or power supply” ([0012]). 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 at least one channel that is configured to accommodate a wire in view of Niziolek’s disclosure that it is desirable to have a speed bump simultaneously reduce the speed of vehicles and also protect a wire running over a roadway ([0001]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR ‘395 in view of Vasselli, and Fischer as applied to claim 1, further in view of Bound, WO 00/12822.
Regarding claim 19, while the resulting combination fails to disclose an upper surface of the speed bump section comprising a texture for assisting a vehicle tire to grip the speed bump section, Bound teaches a segmented speed bump and discloses such (Bound’s page 4 lines 25-27). 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 upper surface of the speed bump section to comprise a texture in view of Bound’s disclosure to assist a vehicle tire to grip the speed bump.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 8-9, 11-13, and 18-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant’s arguments pertain to the claims as amended, with the newly-added limitations of the opposing end, the plurality of channels and the plurality of supports; the rejection above addresses the newly-added limitations. The remaining arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument (bottom half of the page numbered “8 of 13”) that Bound “does not use structural stiffeners or tie elements” is moot since Bound is no longer relied on as the primary reference and is not used in the rejection above for the supports.
Applicant argues (page numbered “9 of 13” through the first full paragraph on “10 of 13”) that Vasselli is non-analogous art since Vasselli discloses a joint for a power transmission belt. It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor's endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Applicant’s invention and the primary reference each include a mating connection for forming an interlock. Vasselli, while not in the field of the inventor’s endeavor, is reasonably pertinent because it teaches a joint, a mating connection for forming an interlock, and is used to modify the mating connection for forming an interlock of the primary reference.
Applicant argues (in the last full paragraph on the page numbered “10 of 13”) that Vasselli lacks any supports accommodated in channels and the remaining claimed limitations of the supports. This argument is not persuasive since Vasselli was not relied on for the supports. The newly-added limitations have been addressed as detailed in the rejection above.
Applicant’s arguments (starting on the last two lines on page “10 of 13”) with respect to Shin are moot since Shin is no longer relied on in the rejection above.
Applicant argues (bottom half of the page numbered “12 of 13”) that Niziolek is attached directly to the ground and does not teach any support. This argument is not persuasive since Niziolek was not relied on for the newly-added limitation of supports.
Applicant does not provide arguments to the dependent claims, only relying on these arguments to the independent claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited sheet. Hirsch, US 6,309,137 is cited for teaching a speed bump with a bottom channel accommodating a reinforcing rod. Other speed bump references are cited for the teaching of having reinforcing rods and bottom channels.
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
/WILLIAM D HUTTON JR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3674