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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4-17-2024 and 7-30-2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21, 27, 28, 32, 38 and 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 3, 6 and 5 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11,987,278. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the existing patent claims continuous monitoring and it is understood that the radars in the application continuously monitor. It is not normal operation of a radar to detect a target once and turn off.
Examiner’s Note: For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Examiner’s Note: Several of the claims use the term “operable to” which is intended use and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). The examiner recommends the phrase “configured to” be used instead.
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.
Claim(s) 21-24, 27, 28, 32-35, 38, 39 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hilleary, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2012/0286103, published November 15, 2012.
As per claims 21 and 32, Hilleary discloses a traffic control system comprising:
a pair of radar sensors independently operable from one another, the pair of radar sensors further being operable in combination to detect and confirm a speed of at least a first moving traffic object when approaching a predetermined traffic safety zone (Hilleary, ¶33);
and a controller configured to, based upon the detected and confirmed speed of the first moving traffic object, interrupt a normal traffic control routine to allow a safe passage of the first moving traffic object and a second traffic object through the predetermined safety zone (Hilleary, ¶68).
As per claims 22 and 33, Hilleary further discloses the traffic control system of claim 21, wherein the predetermined safety zone includes a portion of a vehicle roadway (Hilleary, Fig. 1 and ¶48).
As per claims 23 and 34, Hilleary further discloses the traffic control system of claim 22, wherein the portion of the vehicle roadway includes an intersection of travel paths for the first moving traffic object and the second traffic object (Hilleary, Fig. 1).
As per claims 24 and 35, Hilleary further discloses the traffic control system of claim 23, wherein the normal traffic control routine is interrupted to preemptively avoid a possible collision of the first moving traffic object and the second traffic object at the intersection (Hilleary, ¶68).
As per claims 27 and 38, Hilleary further discloses the traffic control system of claim 21, wherein one of the first moving traffic object and the second traffic object is an automotive vehicle (Hilleary, ¶2).
As per claims 28 and 39, Hilleary further discloses the traffic control system of claim 27, wherein the other of the first moving traffic object and the second traffic object is a locomotive train (Hilleary, ¶4).
As per claim 42, Hilleary further discloses the traffic control method of claim 33, wherein the at least one radar sensor comprises a pair of radar sensors independently operable from one another with respect to the safety zone (Hilleary, ¶33).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 25, 26, 30, 36, 37 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilleary.
As per claims 25 and 36, Hilleary discloses the traffic control system but fails to expressly disclose a second road which does not intersect the railroad.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have a second road in order to gain the obvious benefit of allowing cars to move in a desired direction which does not cross the railroad.
As per claim 26, Hilleary discloses the traffic control system of claim 25, wherein the normal traffic control routine is applicable to the first roadway and the second roadway (Hilleary, Fig. 1 where traffic operates normally).
As per claims 30 and 40, Hilleary discloses the traffic system of claim 21 but fails to expressly discloses the radars being outside the safety zone.
Hilleary discloses the radars outside of harm’s way (Fig. 1 and ¶33).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the radars outside the safety zone in order to gain the benefit of providing radar coverage throughout the safety zone.
As per claim 37, Hilleary further discloses the traffic control method of claim 36, wherein the preemptive control algorithm causes first a change in regulated traffic flow on the first roadway and a second change in regulated traffic flow on the second roadway (Hilleary, ¶68).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to regulate traffic on the second road in order to gain the obvious benefit of increasing safety around the crossing.
Claim(s) 29, 31 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilleary in view of Blesener, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2004/0249571, published December 9, 2004.
As per claim 29, Hilleary discloses the traffic system of claim 21 but fails to expressly disclose determining heading of an object.
Blesener teaches heading determination (¶55).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine heading in order to gain the obvious benefit of realizing which objects are headed towards the intersection.
As per claims 31 and 41, Hilleary discloses the system of claim 21 but fails to expressly disclose signal lights.
Blesener teaches signal lights (¶53).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use signal lights in order to gain the obvious benefit of providing visual clues as to the status of the crossing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights