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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1149 filed 11/30/2023 & 01/02/2025. These IDS have been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Singer et al. (US 2022/0042840; “Singer”).
Regarding claim 1, Singer discloses in figures 1 and 2 a WIM system (40) for a lane of a roadway (10), which defines a roadway surface (12), wherein the lane has a direction of travel for vehicles (¶ [0007]), the WIM system (40) comprising a WIM sensor (20) arranged in the lane of the roadway (10) (¶ [0020]) flush with the roadway surface (12) and elongating to define a length along a longitudinal axis (¶ [0025]) which WIM sensor (20) defines a width in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and parallel to the roadway surface (12) (see figure 1) wherein the WIM sensor (20) defines a plurality of measurement zones (18A, 18B, 18C,…18X) spaced apart from one another along its longitudinal axis, and the plurality of measurement zones (18A, 18B, 18C,…18X) includes a first measurement zone (18A) aligned with a second measurement zone (18B), wherein the plurality of measurement zones (18A, 18B, 18C,…18X) includes a third measurement zone (18C) aligned with the second measurement zone (18B) (¶ [0024]), wherein each of the first (18A), second (18B) and third measurement zones (18C) is configured to individually determine a force exerted on the WIM sensor (20) in a region of the respective measurement zone and accordingly generate a respective measurement signal proportional to the respective individually determined force exerted on the WIM sensor (20) in the respective region of the respective measurement zone (¶¶ [0026]-[0027]), wherein the WIM sensor (20) is disposed so that the longitudinal axis forms an alignment angle with the direction of travel such that a wheel of a vehicle passing over the WIM sensor (20) along the direction of travel and exerting a force on the WIM sensor can be detected as measurement signals by at least the first (18A), second (18B) and third measurement zones (18C) (¶¶ [0034]-[0035], figure 2D).
Regarding claim 2, Singer discloses a presence sensor which is configured and disposed to determine the presence of a vehicle on the lane (¶¶[0036]-[0038]) and wherein each respective two adjacent measurement zones have a respective distance along the longitudinal axis of the WIM sensor (20) from each other (see figure 1, distance between sensos 18A, 18B, 18C, etc.).
Regarding claim 3, Singer discloses wherein each measurement zone (18X) comprises a measuring element (24X) wherein the measuring element in each measurement zone includes one measuring element selected from the group consisting of a piezoelectric measuring element, a piezoresistive measuring element, a strain gauge, a fiber-optic measuring element introduced in an optical fiber (¶ [0026]).
Regarding claim 4, Singer discloses the WIM sensor (20) comprises a profile elongated along the longitudinal axis and defining a space formed substantially along the longitudinal axis, and each measuring element is arranged preloaded in the space (¶ [0026]; FBG’s are “preloaded” in an optical fiber).
Regarding claim 5, Singer discloses The WIM system according to claim 2, wherein the presence sensor is selected from the group consisting of the following: an induction loop; a laser sensor; a camera; a LIDAR; a RADAR; an additional WIM sensor arranged at a presence angle disposed between 45° and 90° to the direction of travel (¶¶ [0036]-[0038], see figure 2A).
Regarding claim 7, Singer discloses an evaluation unit (42, 44) configured and disposed to form and provide a mean value of the measurement signals provided when the wheel passes (¶¶ [0040], [0050], [0073]).
Regarding claim 8, Singer discloses an evaluation unit (42, 44) configured and disposed to determine a difference time for at least two measurement zones wherein the difference time is a time difference of the respective measurement signals of the at least two measurement zones (¶ [0035]).
Regarding claim 9, Singer discloses the alignment angle is smaller than 35° (¶ [0034]).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer.
Regarding claim 6, Singer discloses all the limitations of claim 2 on which this claim depends.
Singer does not explicitly discloses the alignment angle is less than or equal to the arc cosine of the quotient of the width of a wheel contact patch of the wheel in the denominator and a length along the longitudinal axis in the numerator; wherein the length extends over at least the three measurement zones.
However, Singer does disclose the alignment angle may be between 10° and 80°, which presumably would fall in the claimed range. Nevertheless, Singer’s disclosure also establishes alignment angle as a result effective variable (¶¶ [0034]-[0035]). Courts have ruled that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP §2144.05(II).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to optimize Singer’s alignment angle and arrive at the claimed range for the purpose of allowing the vehicle speed to be accurately measured due to the time differential in sensor crossing while also maximizing the wheel contact time with the sensor for an accurate mass determination as well (¶¶ [0034]-[0035]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 13-15 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 10, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious a WIM sensor as claimed wherein the evaluation unit is adapted to form and provide a deviation from the mean value of the measurement signals provided when a wheel passes; wherein the method of calculating the deviation is selected from the group consisting of the following: the standard deviation, the variance, the maximum deviation, proportional to the standard deviation, proportional to the variance, proportional to the maximum deviation, another stochastic dispersion measure in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Claims 11 and 12 would be allowable based on their dependence on claim 10.
Regarding claim 13, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious a method for determining a measure of confidence in a measured wheel force using a WIM system as claimed wherein a confidence level is set according to one of the following calculations: the difference between the measurement signals from each of the first, second and third measurement zones or wherein an average value of at least three measurement signals is formed and a confidence level is set according to a deviation of the measurement signals provided when the wheel passes and wherein the method of calculating the deviation is selected from the group consisting of the following: the standard deviation, the variance, the maximum deviation, proportional to the standard deviation, proportional to the variance, proportional to the maximum deviation, another stochastic dispersion measure in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Claims 14 and 15 are allowed based on their dependence on claim 13.
USPN 6,137,006 generally teaches that if the difference in readings from a WIM sensor with respect to the same axle exceeds a predetermined value an alarm is issued. However, in this scheme the measurement zones are separate sensors, not the same sensor with different zones.
KR 102140793 generally teaches a confidence value for WIM sensors by taking a different between an average measurement value and a reference value, not a difference in measurement values between measurement zones of the same sensor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and represent the general state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATALIE HULS whose telephone number is (571)270-5914. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, John Breene can be reached at (571) 272-4107. 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.
/NATALIE HULS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863