DETAILED ACTION
America Invents Act
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 papers submitted under 35 USC §119(a)-(d) and 35 USC §371, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
This application, filed 11-February-2025, is a national stage entry of WIPO/PCT application PCT/KR2022/021296, filed 26-December-2022.
This application also claims priority from Korean application KR10-2021-0193952, filed 31-December-2021.
This application will, therefore, be accorded a prima facie effective filing date of 31-December-2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement IDS#1 submitted on 27-June-2024 (8 references) has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Preliminary Amendment
The present Office Action is based upon the original patent application filed on 11-February-2025 as modified by the preliminary amendment PA#1 filed on the same date.
Claims 1-5 are now pending in the present application.
Claim Objections
Objections are made to claims 1-5 as follow:
Objection is made to claims 1-5 because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 1-5 each use reference designations throughout, and where such references must be enclosed in parentheses.
Objection is made to claims 1-5 for various informalities:
Claim 1 recites a term “…signal indication value….” [line 17,29] where the meaning of the term is unclear. The Examiner will interpret this to mean a presentation duration time, for the purpose of prior art examination.
Claims 2-5 similarly recite a signal indication value, and which will be interpreted as described for claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 USC §112(a):
(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 1-5 are rejected under 35 USC §112(a) as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without including limitations with respect to interoperation of the first and second traffic signal, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claims. See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 1 describes an intersection signal system based on a distance between intersections (emphasis by Examiner) comprising a first intersection with first traffic lights and a second intersection with second traffic lights, and separated by a particular distance, but fails to describe any connection or interaction between the intersections or traffic lights, or any relevance of one to the other; and which renders the function, operation and purpose of the invention, unclear.
Claim 1 further identifies a first, second, third and fourth signal indication for each of the traffic signals, but fails to describe how these interoperate either with respect to the other signal indications for a particular traffic signal, or with those of the other traffic signal. Specifically, it is not disclosed whether the indications are displayed to be viewed from a particular single location, or from four different points at the intersection; where the traffic signals are viewed simultaneously or sequentially; or a specific order of such viewing. The orientation of the first, second, third and fourth signal indications of the second intersection, with respect to those of the first intersection is also unclear. The function, operation and purpose of the invention is rendered unclear.
Claim 1 recites a limitation with respect to the first intersection : “….wherein signal indication values of the first signal indication 111, second signal indication 112, third signal indication 113, and fourth signal indication 114 are 35 to 37 seconds, 43 to 45 seconds, 19 to 21 seconds, and 19 to 21 seconds, respectively,….” [line 17-20] and a similar limitation with respect to the second intersection, where the meaning of the indication values is unclear: whether they represent a time duration for allowed passage, whether the times occur simultaneously, or in sequence, and in which order.
Claims 2-4 similarly are directed to an intersection based on a distance between intersections, and also fail to show a functional or operational relationship between the intersections. These claims also fail to describe how first, second, third and fourth signal indications interoperate to perform the functions of a particular traffic signal, or to interoperate with other traffic signals.
Claim 5, depending from claim 1, also fails to describe a functional or operational relationship between intersections, or how first, second, third and fourth signal indications interoperate to perform the functions of a particular traffic signal, or to interoperate with other traffic signals.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 USC §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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 USC §112(b) as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites: “….in the other direction” [line 5, 10, 24] for which there is no antecedent in the claim for either a direction or an “other direction”, rendering the limitation and claim indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “the other direction”, “one direction”, “a downward direction”, and “an upward direction” the context and meaning of which is unclear. The claim does not provide a clear reference from which these directions are to be interpreted. The claim does not clearly distinguish where these directions apply as a description of indication content (an image for example) or a direction to which the indicator itself is to be viewed. These descriptions, as presented, render the claim indefinite.
Claim 1 recites a limitation with respect to the first intersection : “….wherein signal indication values of the first signal indication 111, second signal indication 112, third signal indication 113, and fourth signal indication 114 are 35 to 37 seconds, 43 to 45 seconds, 19 to 21 seconds, and 19 to 21 seconds, respectively,….” [line 17-20] and a similar limitation with respect to the second intersection, where the meaning of the indication values is unclear: whether they represent a time duration for allowed passage, whether the times occur simultaneously, or in sequence, and in which order. This limitation, as presented, render the claim indefinite.
Claims 2-5 are indefinite for the same reasons as for claim 1, presented above.
Claim 5 is rejected, at least, because it depends from a rejected claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Meng (U.S. Patent Application Publication # US 2022/0327926 A1) disclosing a traffic signal out-phase green-wave mode control method.
Meng (WIPO/PCT Patent Application Publication # WO 2021/051213 A1) disclosing an out-of-phase wave mode control method for a traffic signal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to STEPHEN R BURGDORF whose telephone number is (571)270-7328. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Friday at 11:00 AM to 8:00 PM EST/EDT.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571)272-3114. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866)217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800)786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)272-1000.
/STEPHEN R BURGDORF/ Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights