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 .
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants’ definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the Republic of Korea on November 20, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 10-2023-0161397 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 8 are objected to for the apparent misspelling of the word “direction” as “diction”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 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 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 17 and 19 recite an “external direction of the pedestrian” without definition. While external direction of the of the crosswalk is defined, external direction of the pedestrian is not, and it is unclear how a direction can be ascertained when a pedestrian can move in multiple directions, even while remaining in the crosswalk.
While the recited limitations are provided the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite. For the purposes of the prior art rejection below this term has been interpreted as beside a pedestrian.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (US RE38870 E) in view of Lee (KR 102471234 B1) in view of Cho et al. (US 11355006 B1) (the combination of which will be referred to as 'combination Hall' hereinafter). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 1, Hall teaches a crosswalk safety system comprising:
a sensor device configured to obtain information related to a speed of a vehicle approaching a crosswalk through a roadway and a separation distance between the vehicle and the crosswalk; (Hall: ¶ 020; Col. 4, Lns. 20-23; independently monitor each lane of traffic with speed detection devices that have a direct line-of-sight to approaching vehicles.) (Hall: Fig. 003) a first warning device configured to issue a first warning to the vehicle in response that the speed obtained through the sensor device is equal to or greater than a first reference speed and the separation distance between the vehicle and the crosswalk is a first separation distance; (Hall: ¶ 049; Cols. 15, Lns. 52-55; Authorities can limit and enforce a maximum vehicle speed, even in the absence of a pedestrian. This is accomplished by setting the Controller 10 to also respond to Conditional Control 40 sensors 40a for speed control) (Hall: ¶ 047; Cols. 15, Lns. 21-34; Controller 10 illuminates a System Status Alarm 70 display 70b in direct view of the driver, to inform of the pedestrian's presence. . . . Conditional Control 40 is provided by a sensor 40a that is used to detect the presence of a vehicle traveling in the direction of the intersection) (Hall: ¶ 047; Cols. 15, Lns. 32-34; ground-mounted induction loop) a second warning device configured to issue a second warning to the vehicle in response that the speed obtained through the sensor device is equal to or greater than a second reference speed (Hall: ¶ 047; Cols. 15, Lns. 17-25, 31-34; Additional reinforcement is provided when the Controller 10 illuminates a System Status Alarm 70 display 70b in direct view of the driver, to inform of the pedestrian's presence. The system can also activate an alarm 70c directed at the pedestrian to alert him to his impending collision with the vehicle . . . Conditional Control 40 is provided by a sensor 40a that is used to detect the presence of a vehicle traveling in the direction of the intersection such as one or more ultrasonic sensors. (A ground-mounted induction loop would also suffice.)) (Hall: ¶ 022; Cols. 10, Lns. 12-28; authorities can set the threshold of the Trigger Sensors 30 required to invoke a system response, set the degree of activation response for Vehicle Restrictors 20, set the threshold and duration of camera response, or change the System Status Alarm 70 message for visual display . . . These parameters are unique to a particular implementation and they are the levels that a monitored object has to reach before a certain system response is invoked or changed) (Hall: ¶ 027; Cols. 11, Lns. 4-6; Trigger Sensors 30a, 30b, 30c in FIG. 2 are speed detection sensors such as the radar or laser device) and the separation distance between the vehicle and the crosswalk is a second separation distance after issuing the first warning; (Hall: ¶ 047; Cols. 15, Lns. 17-25, 31-34; As the pedestrian and the vehicle advanced toward the same intersection, the Trigger Sensor 30a notifies the Controller 10 to activate the Vehicle Restrictors 20, to provide an indication to the operator to slow down. Additional reinforcement is provided when the Controller 10 illuminates a System Status Alarm 70 display 70b in direct view of the driver, to inform of the pedestrian's presence. The system can also activate an alarm 70c directed at the pedestrian to alert him to his impending collision with the vehicle . . . Conditional Control 40 is provided by a sensor 40a that is used to detect the presence of a vehicle traveling in the direction of the intersection such as one or more ultrasonic sensors. (A ground-mounted induction loop would also suffice.)) . . . a controller electrically connected to the sensor device, the first warning device, the second warning device, and the robot to control operations of the first warning device, the second warning device, and the robot. (Hall: ¶ 007; Col. 6, Lns. 34-39; Controller 10 hardware is an industrial grad computer having a conventional microprocessor and computer readable memory that is used to provide control for the Collision Avoidance System based upon input from sensors and operational settings. The Controller 10 then executes the control logic to activate the appropriate outputs)
Hall does not explicitly teach: a robot arranged to move between the vehicle and a pedestrian crossing the crosswalk; however, Lee does teach:
a robot arranged to move between the vehicle and a pedestrian crossing the crosswalk (Lee: ¶ 064; drivable area P represents a range in which the safe companion robot 100a can drive, and preferably may be a rectangular area having vehicle stop lines 300a and 300b of both lanes as rims.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lee with the teachings of Hall because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of “helping a pedestrian at a crosswalk [avoid] a collision with a vehicle in advance by accompanying the pedestrian to safely pass at the crosswalk" (Lee: ¶ 007) in a way that easily merges with the multi-step warning process that Hall teaches.
Hall does not explicitly teach: in response that the separation distance between the vehicle and the crosswalk obtained through the sensor device is less than or equal to a third separation distance after issuing the second warning; and; however, Cho does teach:
in response that the separation distance between the vehicle and the crosswalk obtained through the sensor device is less than or equal to a third separation distance after issuing the second warning; and (Cho: ¶ 053; Col. 9, Lns. 54-61; When the electronic device 110 identifies that a distance between the vehicle 120 and the crosswalk is less than or equal to a first distance d1, or the traffic light turns on in green, the electronic device 110 may then provide a signal requesting the first indicator 400 to form the screen wall.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Cho with the teachings of Hall because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of "notifying the pedestrians of approaching vehicles or a method of controlling the speed of the vehicle approaching the crosswalk" (Cho: ¶ 004; Col. 1, Lns 30-35).
Regarding claim 2, as detailed above, combination Hall teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Hall further teaches:
wherein the sensor device includes a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) sensor. (Hall: ¶ 009; Col. 7, Lns. 4; speed detection (radar, laser))
Regarding claim 3, as detailed above, combination Hall teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 2. Hall further teaches:
further including: a traffic light arranged in an external direction of the crosswalk to transmit a traffic signal to vehicles in a state that a direction in which the crosswalk faces the roadway is the external direction, (Hall: Fig. 003; [[40a]]) wherein the sensor device is coupled to the traffic light. (Hall: ¶ 047; Cols. 15, Lns. 29-31; Conditional Control 40 is provided by a sensor 40a that is used to detect the presence of a vehicle traveling in the direction of the intersection)
Regarding claim 4, as detailed above, combination Hall teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 3. Hall further teaches:
wherein the traffic light includes a plurality of traffic lights, each of which is arranged adjacent to an end portion of the crosswalk in an extension direction in a state that a direction in which the crosswalk extends is the extension direction, (Hall: Fig. 005; [[30a]]) wherein the sensor device is coupled to each of the traffic lights, and wherein the controller is coupled to at least one of the plurality of traffic lights. (Hall: ¶ 047; Cols. 15, Lns. 18-25; Trigger Sensor 30a notifies the Controller 10 to activate the Vehicle Restrictors 20, to provide an indication to the operator to slow down. Additional reinforcement is provided when the Controller 10 illuminates a System Status Alarm 70 display 70b in direct view of the driver, to inform of the pedestrian's presence. The system can also activate an alarm 70c directed at the pedestrian to alert him to his impending collision with the vehicle.)
Regarding claim 5, as detailed above, combination Hall teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Hall further teaches:
wherein the first warning device includes a light source member that emits light to provide the first warning to the vehicle. (Hall: Fig. 003; [[40a]]) (Hall: ¶ 047; Cols. 15, Lns. 18-25; Trigger Sensor 30a notifies the Controller 10 to activate the Vehicle Restrictors 20, to provide an indication to the operator to slow down. Additional reinforcement is provided when the Controller 10 illuminates a System Status Alarm 70 display 70b in direct view of the driver, to inform of the pedestrian's presence. The system can also activate an alarm 70c directed at the pedestrian to alert him to his impending collision with the vehicle.)
Regarding claim 6, as detailed above, combination Hall teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 5. Cho further teaches:
wherein the light source member includes a plurality of light source members arranged along an extension direction in an external diction of the crosswalk in a state that a direction in which the crosswalk faces the roadway is the external direction and a direction in which the crosswalk extends is the extension direction. (Cho: ¶ 055; Cols. 10, Lns. 24-25; may control the indicator 500 to display at least some of the LEDs 502 in green) (Cho: Fig. 002)
Regarding claim 18, Hall teaches a method of controlling a crosswalk safety system, the method comprising:
obtaining, by a controller, (Hall: ¶ 007; Col. 6, Lns. 34-39; Controller 10 hardware is an industrial grad computer having a conventional microprocessor and computer readable memory that is used to provide control for the Collision Avoidance System based upon input from sensors and operational settings. The Controller 10 then executes the control logic to activate the appropriate outputs) information related to a speed of a vehicle approaching a crosswalk through a roadway and a separation distance between the vehicle and the crosswalk; (Hall: ¶ 020; Col. 4, Lns. 20-23; independently monitor each lane of traffic with speed detection devices that have a direct line-of-sight to approaching vehicles.) issuing, by the controller, a first warning to the vehicle in response that the speed of the vehicle is equal to or greater than a first reference speed and the separation distance between the vehicle and the crosswalk is a first separation distance; (Hall: ¶ 049; Cols. 15, Lns. 52-55; Authorities can limit and enforce a maximum vehicle speed, even in the absence of a pedestrian. This is accomplished by setting the Controller 10 to also respond to Conditional Control 40 sensors 40a for speed control) (Hall: ¶ 047; Cols. 15, Lns. 21-34; Controller 10 illuminates a System Status Alarm 70 display 70b in direct view of the driver, to inform of the pedestrian's presence. . . . Conditional Control 40 is provided by a sensor 40a that is used to detect the presence of a vehicle traveling in the direction of the intersection) (Hall: ¶ 047; Cols. 15, Lns. 32-34; ground-mounted induction loop)
issuing, by the controller, a second warning to the vehicle in response that the speed of the vehicle is equal to or greater than a second reference speed lower than the first reference speed (Hall: ¶ 022; Cols. 10, Lns. 12-28; authorities can set the threshold of the Trigger Sensors 30 required to invoke a system response, set the degree of activation response for Vehicle Restrictors 20, set the threshold and duration of camera response, or change the System Status Alarm 70 message for visual display . . . These parameters are unique to a particular implementation and they are the levels that a monitored object has to reach before a certain system response is invoked or changed) (Hall: ¶ 027; Cols. 11, Lns. 4-6; Trigger Sensors 30a, 30b, 30c in FIG. 2 are speed detection sensors such as the radar or laser device) and the separation distance between the vehicle and the crosswalk is a second separation distance shorter than the first separation distance after issuing the first warning; and (Hall: ¶ 047; Cols. 15, Lns. 17-25, 31-34; As the pedestrian and the vehicle advanced toward the same intersection, the Trigger Sensor 30a notifies the Controller 10 to activate the Vehicle Restrictors 20, to provide an indication to the operator to slow down. Additional reinforcement is provided when the Controller 10 illuminates a System Status Alarm 70 display 70b in direct view of the driver, to inform of the pedestrian's presence. The system can also activate an alarm 70c directed at the pedestrian to alert him to his impending collision with the vehicle . . . Conditional Control 40 is provided by a sensor 40a that is used to detect the presence of a vehicle traveling in the direction of the intersection such as one or more ultrasonic sensors. (A ground-mounted induction loop would also suffice.))
Hall does not explicitly teach: controlling, by the controller, a robot of the crosswalk safety system, to move between the vehicle and a pedestrian crossing the crosswalk; however, Lee does teach:
controlling, by the controller, a robot of the crosswalk safety system, to move between the vehicle and a pedestrian crossing the crosswalk◄ (Lee: ¶ 064; drivable area P represents a range in which the safe companion robot 100a can drive, and preferably may be a rectangular area having vehicle stop lines 300a and 300b of both lanes as rims.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lee with the teachings of Hall because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of “helping a pedestrian at a crosswalk [avoid] a collision with a vehicle in advance by accompanying the pedestrian to safely pass at the crosswalk" (Lee: ¶ 007) in a way that easily merges with the multi-step warning process that Hall teaches.
Hall does not explicitly teach: in response that the separation distance between the vehicle and the crosswalk is less than or equal to a third separation distance shorter than the second separation distance after issuing the second warning.; however, Cho does teach:
in response that the separation distance between the vehicle and the crosswalk is less than or equal to a third separation distance shorter than the second separation distance after issuing the second warning. (Cho: ¶ 053; Col. 9, Lns. 54-61; When the electronic device 110 identifies that a distance between the vehicle 120 and the crosswalk is less than or equal to a first distance d1, or the traffic light turns on in green, the electronic device 110 may then provide a signal requesting the first indicator 400 to form the screen wall.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Cho with the teachings of Hall because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of "notifying the pedestrians of approaching vehicles or a method of controlling the speed of the vehicle approaching the crosswalk" (Cho: ¶ 004; Col. 1, Lns 30-35).
Regarding claim 19, as detailed above, combination Hall teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 18. Lee further teaches:
further including: controlling, by the controller, the robot to move along a movement direction of the pedestrian in an external direction of the pedestrian in a state that the pedestrian enters the crosswalk (Lee: ¶ 064; drivable area P represents a range in which the safe companion robot 100a can drive, and preferably may be a rectangular area having vehicle stop lines 300a and 300b of both lanes as rims.) (Lee: Fig. 001; [[showing robot operating between crosswalk and vehicle driving area]])
And Hall further teaches: and the second warning is not issued. (Hall: ¶ 069; Cols. 19, Lns. 41-45; If some incident occurs downstream from the Collision Avoidance area that eventually causes the traffic to slow below a predetermined threshold then the system will automatically adjust the merging-lane traffic light 70d as the System Status Alarm 70 and the Vehicle Restrictor 20 accordingly)
Claims 7-10 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Hall as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (KR 20220146985 A).
Regarding claim 7, Hall does not explicitly teach:
wherein the second warning device includes a bollard member that is configured to protrude upwards from a ground.; however, Kim does teach:
wherein the second warning device includes a bollard member that is configured to protrude upwards from a ground. (Kim: ¶ 001; an AUTO safety fence structure that can be installed on both sides of a crosswalk. This AUTO safety fence is usually buried in the underground space, but when the pedestrian traffic light is turned on, it automatically rises to the ground and blocks both sides of the crosswalk like a barrier.) (Kim: ¶ 006; high-pressure steel pillar in the following figure.2 is a circular rod with a diameter of 60cm (2EA on one side, 4EA on the left and right fences) . . . safety fence can be driven by an electronic sensitive sensor power transmission program. In other words, by adopting a device and circuit diagram compatible with the electronic circuit of a walking traffic light, when a green walking signal is emitted, the interlocked electronic sensitive precision sensor operates)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kim with the teachings of Hall because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of “ensure safe walking of socially vulnerable groups such as children and the elderly who are slow to walk from drunk driving or speeding vehicle" (Kim: ¶ 001).
Regarding claim 8, as detailed above, combination Hall in view of Kim teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 7. Kim teaches:
wherein the bollard member includes a plurality of bollard members arranged along an extension direction in an external diction of the crosswalk in a state that a direction in which the crosswalk faces the roadway is the external direction and a direction in which the crosswalk extends is the extension direction, (Kim: ¶ 001; an AUTO safety fence structure that can be installed on both sides of a crosswalk. This AUTO safety fence is usually buried in the underground space, but when the pedestrian traffic light is turned on, it automatically rises to the ground and blocks both sides of the crosswalk like a barrier.)
Regarding claim 9, as detailed above, combination Hall in view of Kim teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 8. Kim teaches:
wherein the first warning device includes a light source member that emits light to issue the first warning to the vehicle, (Cho: ¶ 055; Cols. 10, Lns. 24-25; may control the indicator 500 to display at least some of the LEDs 502 in green) wherein the light source member includes a plurality of light source member arranged along the extension direction in the external direction of the crosswalk, and (Cho: Fig. 002)
And Kim teaches: wherein the bollard member is arranged in the external direction of the light source member. (Kim: ¶ 001; an AUTO safety fence structure that can be installed on both sides of a crosswalk. This AUTO safety fence is usually buried in the underground space, but when the pedestrian traffic light is turned on, it automatically rises to the ground and blocks both sides of the crosswalk like a barrier.)
Regarding claim 10, as detailed above, combination Hall in view of Kim teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 7. Hall teaches:
further including: a traffic light installed in an external direction of the crosswalk to transmit a traffic signal to vehicles, wherein the traffic light is arranged in the external direction of the bollard member. (Hall: Fig. 003; [[40a][20a]])
Regarding claim 16, as detailed above, combination Hall in view of Kim teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 9. Lee teaches:
wherein the robot is arranged in a robot movement area which is defined between the crosswalk and the light source member. (Lee: ¶ 064; drivable area P represents a range in which the safe companion robot 100a can drive, and preferably may be a rectangular area having vehicle stop lines 300a and 300b of both lanes as rims.) (Lee: Fig. 001; [[showing robot operating between crosswalk and vehicle driving area]])
Regarding claim 17, as detailed above, combination Hall in view of Kim teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 16. Lee teaches:
wherein the robot moves along a movement direction of the pedestrian in the external direction of the pedestrian in a state that the pedestrian enters the crosswalk (Lee: ¶ 064; drivable area P represents a range in which the safe companion robot 100a can drive, and preferably may be a rectangular area having vehicle stop lines 300a and 300b of both lanes as rims.) (Lee: Fig. 001; [[showing robot operating between crosswalk and vehicle driving area]]) and the second warning is not issued. (Hall: ¶ 069; Cols. 19, Lns. 41-45; If some incident occurs downstream from the Collision Avoidance area that eventually causes the traffic to slow below a predetermined threshold then the system will automatically adjust the merging-lane traffic light 70d as the System Status Alarm 70 and the Vehicle Restrictor 20 accordingly)
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Hall in view of Kim as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Steinmann (CH 644418 A5).
Regarding claim 11, as detailed above, combination Hall in view of Kim teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 7. Hall does not explicitly teach:
wherein the second warning device includes: a rack connected to a lower side of the bollard member; a pinion engaged with the rack to move the rack up or down as the pinion rotates; and a motor operatively connected to the controller and connected to the pinion and configured to rotate the pinion.; however, Steinmann does teach:
wherein the second warning device includes: a rack connected to a lower side of the bollard member; a pinion engaged with the rack to move the rack up or down as the pinion rotates; and a motor operatively connected to the controller and connected to the pinion and configured to rotate the pinion. (Steinmann: Clm. 004; Barrier device according to claim 1, characterized in that an electric motor (13) with self-locking gearbox (14) is provided for extending and retracting the barrier post, which is mounted on the bearing frame (6) and connected to the barrier post (9) via a chain, belt or rack drive).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Steinmann with the teachings of Hall because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of a bollard that "operates reliably and has a structurally simple, cost-effective design." (Steinmann: ¶ 007).
Regarding claim 12, as detailed above, combination Hall in view of Kim in view of Steinmann teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 11. Steinmann teaches:
wherein the second warning device further includes a stopper that protrudes from a lower end portion of the rack toward the pinion so that the stopper limits movement of the rack within a predetermined distance. (Steinmann: ¶ 035; To retract and extend the barrier post 9, an electric motor 13 with a self-locking gear 14 is provided,)
Regarding claim 13, as detailed above, combination Hall in view of Kim in view of Steinmann teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 12. Steinmann teaches:
wherein the stopper selectively engages with the pinion to prevent the rotation of the pinion. (Steinmann: ¶ 025; To retract and extend the barrier post 9, an electric motor 13 with a self-locking gear 14 is provided,)
Regarding claim 14, as detailed above, combination Hall in view of Kim in view of Steinmann teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 11. Steinmann teaches:
wherein the rack includes a guide hole extending in a longitudinal direction of the rack, and wherein the second warning device further includes a guide inserted into the guide hole to guide a vertical movement of the rack. (Steinmann: ¶ 014; barrier device with a retractable barrier post which is guided longitudinally and is releasably locked at least in its effective position, characterized in that the barrier post (9) is supported in two ways for its longitudinal guidance by means of rollers) (Steinmann: ¶ 006; At the bottom of the locking body, guide pins are arranged on its outer side, which run in longitudinal grooves of the guide tube.)
Regarding claim 15, as detailed above, combination Hall in view of Kim teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 7. Hall does not explicitly teach:
wherein a surface of the bollard member in an external direction includes a curved area which is convex or concave toward the external direction in a state that a direction in which the crosswalk faces the roadway is the external direction.; however, Steinmann does teach:
wherein a surface of the bollard member in an external direction includes a curved area which is convex or concave toward the external direction in a state that a direction in which the crosswalk faces the roadway is the external direction. (Steinmann: ¶ 023; barrier post could also have a round profile. In this case, profile rollers adapted to the curvature of the post would be appropriately used.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Steinmann with the teachings of Hall because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of a bollard that "operates reliably and has a structurally simple, cost-effective design." (Steinmann: ¶ 007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Uçar (US 20210209943 A1) which discloses a robot assembled crosswalk.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES PALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5280. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30 - 18:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/C.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663