DETAILED ACTION
The office action is in response to application filed on 3-4-26. Claims 1, 6-12, 17-20, 22-29 and 31-36 are pending in the application and have been examined.
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 .
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, 6, 11-12, 17, 22-25 and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over US 2002/0027510 to Jones et al. (“Jones”).
Regarding claim 1, Jones discloses a traffic signal battery back-up assembly (see figs.1-2) comprising: at least one rechargeable battery (see 110 fig.2 para 0020), member, comprising a battery bank containing at least one battery cell (see 110 fig.2 para 0020), a DC/ AC converter (DC-to-AC inverter 114) configured to switch between a first mode (102 connected to 110), wherein the DC/ AC converter is configured to receive direct current from the rechargeable battery member (110) and to deliver alternating current (120 VAC) to an external traffic control component, and a second mode (100 to charger 108), wherein the DC/AC converter (both 108 and 114) is configured to receive alternating current from an external source (100 charger 108) and deliver direct current to the rechargeable battery member; and a monitoring (Circuit transfer switch 102) component coupled to the DC/AC converter and configured to switch the DC/AC converter between the first and second modes (fig. 2) wherein the monitoring component is configured to switch the DC/AC converter (both 108 and 114) from the second mode to the first mode in about 50 milliseconds or less.
Jones does not disclose “wherein the monitoring component is configured to switch the DC/AC converter from the second mode to the first mode in about 50 milliseconds or less”. However, Jones does disclose switching the DC/AC converter modes from receiving AC power to outputting DC power within 200 to 300 milliseconds, which is close to the recited range of less than 50 milliseconds. It has previously been held that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close”. See MPEP 2144.05.I. It has further been held 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.A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have provided a range of less than 50 ms, as the range is close to the 200-300 ms of Jones without established criticality of 50 vs versus 200 ms, and/or as the mere discovery or optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation within prior art conditions.
Regarding claim 6, Jones discloses an enclosure (AEPS 101) for retaining the rechargeable battery member, the DC/ AC converter, and the monitoring component (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Jones discloses wherein the external source is an electrical power grid (100).
Regarding claim 12, Jones discloses a method for delivering electrical power to a traffic control system, the method comprising: connecting at least one rechargeable battery (110) member to a component (fig. 2) of the traffic control system detecting an external power level (100) delivered to said component; and switching, in about 50 milliseconds or less, a DC/AC converter (114) between a first mode (102 connected to 110), wherein the DC/ AC converter is configured to receive direct current from the rechargeable battery member and to deliver alternating current to the component of the traffic control system and a second mode (100 to charger 108), wherein the DC/AC converter is configured to receive alternating current from an external source and deliver direct current to the rechargeable battery member (110).
Jones does not disclose “wherein the monitoring component is configured to switch the DC/AC converter from the second mode to the first mode in about 50 milliseconds or less”. However, Jones does disclose switching the DC/AC converter modes from receiving AC power to outputting DC power within 200 to 300 milliseconds, which is close to the recited range of less than 50 milliseconds. It has previously been held that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close”. See MPEP 2144.05.I. It has further been held 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.A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have provided a range of less than 50 ms, as the range is close to the 200-300 ms of Jones without established criticality of 50 vs versus 200 ms, and/or as the mere discovery or optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation within prior art conditions.
Regarding claim 17, Jones discloses the rechargeable battery member, the DC/AC converter, and the monitoring component are retained in an enclosure (AEPS 101).
Regarding claim 22, Jones discloses the monitoring (para; 0021, Power sensor 128 may be disposed to monitor the power supplied to all lights housed within a single traffic light head and, thus, may be provided with multiple input channels to accommodate as many inputs as there are signal lights on the signal head, plus the neutral wire) component is configured to detect that the external traffic control component requires power to operate (para; 0022), and to switch the DC/AC converter from the second mode to the first mode (102 connected to 110).
Regarding claim 23, Jones discloses the monitoring component is configured to detect that the external traffic control component has sufficient power to operate, and to switch the DC/ AC converter from the first mode to the second mode ([0022]).
Regarding claim 24, Jones discloses the monitoring component generates a time delay ([0021-0022], adjustable delay timer 132) after detecting that the external traffic control component has sufficient power to operate before switching the DC/AC converter from the first mode to the second mode ([0022]).
Regarding claim 25, Jones discloses all the claim limitation as set forth in the rejection of claims above.
Jones does not disclose “the time delay is about 15 seconds”. However, it has further been held 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.A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have provided a time delay of about 15 seconds as the mere discovery or optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation within prior art conditions.
Regarding claim 31, Jones discloses detecting that the external traffic control component requires power to operate and switching the DC/ AC converter from the second mode to the first mode (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 32, Jones discloses detecting that the external traffic control component has sufficient power to operate and switching the DC/AC converter from the first mode to the second mode (para; 0030, Remote sensing can be accomplished by employing a street-level AC power failure detector 275 within the intersection controller cabinet to transmit main power failure signal 276 to AC power sensing detector 215 in power state detector 201).
Regarding claim 33, Jones discloses generating a time delay (adjustable delay timer 132) after detecting that the external traffic control component sufficient power to operate before switching the DC/AC converter from the first mode to the second mode (para; 0022).
Regarding claim 34, Jones discloses all the claim limitation as set forth in the rejection of claims above.
Jones does not disclose “the time delay is about 15 seconds”. However, it has further been held 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.A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have provided a time delay of about 15 seconds as the mere discovery or optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation within prior art conditions.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over US 2002/0027510 to Jones et al. (“Jones”) in view of US 2018/0206306 to Thosteson et al. (“Thosteson”).
Regarding claim 10, Jones discloses all the claim limitation as set forth in the rejection of claims above.
But, Jones does not disclose a plurality of breakers to protect the claimed system and the traffic signal components from power spike.
However, Thosteson discloses a plurality of breakers to protect the claimed system and the traffic signal components from power spike (fig. 2, [0038], optional in-rush current limiter 270).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jones by adding plurality of relay as part of its configuration as taught by Thosteson, in order to control in-rush current to the multiple LED lighting fixtures.
Claims 7-9 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over US 2002/0027510 to Jones et al. (“Jones”) in view of US 2009/0167562 to LIANG (“LIANG”).
Regarding claim 7, Jones discloses all the claim limitation as set forth in the rejection of claims above.
But, Jones does not disclose an exhaust fan for blowing warm air from the enclosure into ambient surroundings via an exhaust vent.
However, LIANG disclose an exhaust fan for blowing warm air from the enclosure into ambient surroundings via an exhaust vent (para; 0016, The traffic light control cabinet may be equipped with a heating device, a cooling device and/or a ventilating device, for regulating the inner air condition so as to elongate the life of the contained electronic devices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jones by adding ventilating device as part of its configuration as taught by LIANG, in order to facilitates the air flow in the control cabinet. A plurality of air vents may be provided on the traffic light control cabinet, for better communication between internal and external air, thus providing appropriated temperature and humidity inside the cabinet.
Regarding claim 8, Jones discloses all the claim limitation as set forth in the rejection of claims above.
But, Jones does not disclose a thermostat for monitoring temperature inside the enclosure and activating the exhaust fan to expel the warm air from the enclosure.
However, LIANG disclose a thermostat for monitoring temperature inside the enclosure and activating the exhaust fan to expel the warm air from the enclosure (para; 0016, The traffic light control cabinet may be equipped with a heating device, a cooling device and/or a ventilating device, for regulating the inner air condition so as to elongate the life of the contained electronic devices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jones by adding ventilating device as part of its configuration as taught by LIANG, in order to facilitates the air flow in the control cabinet. A plurality of air vents may be provided on the traffic light control cabinet, for better communication between internal and external air, thus providing appropriated temperature and humidity inside the cabinet.
Regarding claim 9, Jones discloses all the claim limitation as set forth in the rejection of claims above.
But, Jones does not disclose an intake vent inside of the enclosure to allow ambient air from outside the enclosure to enter and thereby provide air circulation.
However, LIANG disclose an intake vent inside of the enclosure to allow ambient air from outside the enclosure to enter and thereby provide air circulation (para; 0016, The traffic light control cabinet may be equipped with a heating device, a cooling device and/or a ventilating device, for regulating the inner air condition so as to elongate the life of the contained electronic devices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jones by adding ventilating device as part of its configuration as taught by LIANG, in order to facilitates the air flow in the control cabinet. A plurality of air vents may be provided on the traffic light control cabinet, for better communication between internal and external air, thus providing appropriated temperature and humidity inside the cabinet.
Regarding claim 18, Jones discloses all the claim limitation as set forth in the rejection of claims above.
But, Jones does not disclose an exhaust fan for blowing warm air from the enclosure into ambient surroundings via an exhaust vent is installed on the enclosure.
However, LIANG discloses an exhaust fan for blowing warm air from the enclosure into ambient surroundings via an exhaust vent is installed on the enclosure (para; 0016, The traffic light control cabinet may be equipped with a heating device, a cooling device and/or a ventilating device, for regulating the inner air condition so as to elongate the life of the contained electronic devices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jones by adding ventilating device as part of its configuration as taught by LIANG, in order to facilitates the air flow in the control cabinet. A plurality of air vents may be provided on the traffic light control cabinet, for better communication between internal and external air, thus providing appropriated temperature and humidity inside the cabinet.
Regarding claim 19, Jones discloses all the claim limitation as set forth in the rejection of claims above.
But, Jones does not disclose a thermostat for monitoring temperature inside the enclosure and activating the exhaust fan to expel the warm air from the enclosure is installed inside or on the enclosure.
However, LIANG disclose a thermostat for monitoring temperature inside the enclosure and activating the exhaust fan to expel the warm air from the enclosure is installed inside or on the enclosure (para; 0016, The traffic light control cabinet may be equipped with a heating device, a cooling device and/or a ventilating device, for regulating the inner air condition so as to elongate the life of the contained electronic devices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jones by adding ventilating device as part of its configuration as taught by LIANG, in order to facilitates the air flow in the control cabinet. A plurality of air vents may be provided on the traffic light control cabinet, for better communication between internal and external air, thus providing appropriated temperature and humidity inside the cabinet.
Regarding claim 20, Jones discloses all the claim limitation as set forth in the rejection of claims above.
But, Jones does not disclose an intake vent is installed inside of the enclosure to allow ambient air from outside the enclosure to enter and thereby provide air circulation.
However, LIANG disclose an intake vent is installed inside of the enclosure to allow ambient air from outside the enclosure to enter and thereby provide air circulation (para; 0016, The traffic light control cabinet may be equipped with a heating device, a cooling device and/or a ventilating device, for regulating the inner air condition so as to elongate the life of the contained electronic devices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jones by adding ventilating device as part of its configuration as taught by LIANG, in order to facilitates the air flow in the control cabinet. A plurality of air vents may be provided on the traffic light control cabinet, for better communication between internal and external air, thus providing appropriated temperature and humidity inside the cabinet.
Claims 26-27 and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over US 2002/0027510 to Jones et al. (“Jones”) in view of US 2009/0167562 to LIANG (“LIANG”) and further in view of US 9,544,967 to Recker et al. (“Recker”).
Regarding claim 26, Jones discloses all the claim limitation as set forth in the rejection of claims above.
But, Jones in view of LIANG does not discloses a telematics device coupled to the rechargeable battery member and configured for wireless coupling to an external component.
However, Recker discloses a telematics device (fig. 6, 628) coupled to the rechargeable battery member and configured for wireless coupling to an external component (Col. 30, lines 36-41, The power connection to external power 614 may be AC power, DC power or the like. The external grid shifting controller 604 may contain an AC/DC converter, DC/DC converter and the 40 like to convert and condition the power for the lighting devices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jones in view of LIANG by adding processor/controller as part of its configuration as taught by Recker, in order to facilitates a real time clock that may allow the user to program times of day and the percentage of power that will be supplied from the battery source at those times of day such that the processor/controller may manage the two power sources to implement the sharing.
Regarding claim 27, Jones discloses all the claim limitation as set forth in the rejection of claims above.
But, Jones in view of LIANG does not discloses a DC/DC converter electrically coupled to the telematics device and the rechargeable battery member and configured to receive a first direct current from the rechargeable battery with a first voltage and to deliver a second direct current with a second voltage to the telematics device, wherein the first voltage is different from the second voltage.
However, Recker discloses a DC/DC converter electrically coupled to the telematics device and the rechargeable battery member and configured to receive a first direct current from the rechargeable battery with a first voltage and to deliver a second direct current with a second voltage (Col. 30) to the telematics device, wherein the first voltage is different from the second voltage (Col. 30, lines 36-41, The power connection to external power 614 may be AC power, DC power or the like. The external grid shifting controller 604 may contain an AC/DC converter, DC/DC converter and the 40 like to convert and condition the power for the lighting devices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jones in view of LIANG by adding processor/controller as part of its configuration as taught by Recker, in order to facilitates a real time clock that may allow the user to program times of day and the percentage of power that will be supplied from the battery source at those times of day such that the processor/controller may manage the two power sources to implement the sharing.
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over US 2002/0027510 to Jones et al. (“Jones”) in view of US 2012/0280617 to Josefowicz et al. (“Josefowicz”).
Regarding claim 28, Jones discloses all the claim limitation as set forth in the rejection of claims above.
But, Jones does not disclose a gate component for providing Wi-Fi connectivity for wirelessly transmitting data of the monitoring component to a remote-control center ([0025], monitor performance remotely either through direct wireless communication or through wireless networks).
However, Josefowicz discloses a gate component for providing Wi-Fi connectivity for wirelessly transmitting data of the monitoring component to a remote-control center ([0025], monitor performance remotely either through direct wireless communication or through wireless networks).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jones by adding wireless communication as part of its configuration as taught by Josefowicz, in order to facilitates to accept data from external sensors and to produce signals to control turn on or off individual LED channels.
Regarding claim 29, Jones discloses all the claim limitation as set forth in the rejection of claims above.
But, Jones does not disclose the DC/AC converter is a full wave rectifier.
However, Josefowicz discloses the DC/AC converter is a full wave rectifier ([0065], The AC input is then rectified at 904 to convert the AC to full-wave DC voltage and current).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jones by adding full wave rectifier as part of its configuration as taught by Josefowicz, in order to supply the required current, to reduce ripple voltage and current to provide cleaner output.
Regarding claim 35, Jones discloses all the claim limitation as set forth in the rejection of claims above.
But, Jones in view of LIANG does not receiving a first direct current from the rechargeable battery member with a first voltage and delivering a second direct current with a second voltage to a telematics device, wherein the first voltage is different from the second voltage.
However, Recker discloses receiving a first direct current from the rechargeable battery member with a first voltage and delivering a second direct current with a second voltage (Col. 30) to a telematics device (fig. 6, 628), wherein the first voltage is different from the second voltage.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jones in view of LIANG by adding processor/controller as part of its configuration as taught by Recker, in order to facilitates a real time clock that may allow the user to program times of day and the percentage of power that will be supplied from the battery source at those times of day such that the processor/controller may manage the two power sources to implement the sharing.
Regarding claim 36, Jones discloses all the claim limitation as set forth in the rejection of claims above.
But, Jones in view of LIANG does not wirelessly transmitting data from the telematics device to a remote controller.
However, Recker discloses wirelessly transmitting data from the telematics device (fig. 6, 628) to a remote controller (fig. 6, wireless communication).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jones in view of LIANG by adding processor/controller as part of its configuration as taught by Recker, in order to facilitates a real time clock that may allow the user to program times of day and the percentage of power that will be supplied from the battery source at those times of day such that the processor/controller may manage the two power sources to implement the sharing.
Response to argument
Applicant’s argument filed on 3-4-26 with respect to claims 1, 6-12, 17-20, 22-29, 31-36 has been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Riggs et al. US 11,887,475 Bl A traffic light control system configured to provide instructions to a traffic light for testing performance of an autonomous vehicle as it approaches the traffic light includes a controller. The controller includes a transceiver in communication with the traffic light and a computer-readable memory storing a plurality of operation routines for the traffic light.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESAYAS G YESHAW whose telephone number is (571)270-1959. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat 9AM-7PM.
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, Menna Youssef can be reached at 5712703684. 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.
/ESAYAS G YESHAW/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/RYAN JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights