DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6, 11, 14-15, 17, and 20, are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/05/26.
Applicant elected Group VI: Fig. 22 (Figs. 1-12, generic)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 7-9, 12, 16, and 18-19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dawson (GB 2,213,854).
In respect to claim 1, Dawson discloses a sign assembly comprising: a traffic cone 13; a sign 14; and a mounting assembly; the mounting assembly comprising: a top coupler 19 coupled to the sign and a top ring 22 coupled to the top coupler (Fig. 2); a bottom coupler 21 coupled to the sign and a bottom ring 23 coupled to the bottom coupler (Fig. 2); the top ring 22 positioned around an upright portion 24 of the traffic cone and the bottom ring 23 positioned [also] around the upright portion 24 (Fig. 1).
In respect to claims 7 and 8, Dawson discloses that the top and bottom rings 22 and 23 are rope which is flexible (Pg. 2, 16-25); the term “rigid” is broad, and includes the rope which is thick and is immediately ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art to have at least some degree of rigidity.
In respect to claim 9, Dawson discloses that the upright portion is conical (Fig. 1).
In respect to claims 12 and 18, Dawson discloses all of the claimed elements (top ring = first ring; bottom ring = second ring) and functionalities for the reasons detailed above.
In respect to claims 16 and 19, Dawson discloses that at least the first (top) ring is formed of a flexible yet rigid rope, which is adjustable i.e. it may form different cross-section shapes to fit different cross-sections such as a pyramidal portion of a traffic cone (“a traffic panel”) (although this is not explicitly shown, the structure is capable).
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Spray (US 2012/0186511).
In respect to claim 1, Spray discloses a sign assembly comprising: a traffic cone 208; a sign “reserved”; and a mounting assembly, the mounting assembling comprising: a top coupler 302 coupled to the sign and a bottom coupler (opposite 302) coupled to the sign; and a top ring 102 coupled to the top coupler (via link 304) (Fig. 3) and a bottom ring 104 coupled to the bottom coupler (via link 304 and arm 110) (Fig. 3).
In respect to claims 2 and 4, Spray discloses that the mounting assembly comprises a rigid link 304 coupled to the top ring and bottom ring (see above) (Figs. 3-4).
In respect to claim 3, Spray discloses two links, wherein the opposite link from the sign may be construed as the “link” of the claim, which is opposite to the “reserved” sign detailed above (Fig. 3).
In respect to claim 5, Spray discloses that the links 304 are rigid pieces of metal, however, they are at least “flexible” to some degree as is ascertained by one of ordinary skill, as broadly claimed. For instance, one “alignment flange” (link) 304 may be used, however using two increases stability (0032), which infers low stability/flexibility with one.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wicken et al. (US 10,679,529).
Wicken et al. disclose a mounting assembling comprising: a first coupler and a scond coupler coupled to a flag 5 (but structurally capable of coupling to a “sign”) (Fig. 1A); a first ring 8 (comprising a biasing member, spring) coupled to the first coupler and a second ring 8 (comprising a biasing member, spring) coupled to the second coupler (Figs. 1B-1C). The first and second rings are springs and thus may fit different sized cross-sections, and thus are configured to couple to an upright portion of a traffic cone.
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dawson (GB 2,213,854).
Dawson substantially discloses the claimed invention for the reasons stated above including a traffic cone with a conical upright portion, but does not disclose that the traffic cone has a pyramidal upright position, however this would be obvious. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, namely, applying the mounting assembly shown for a conical traffic cone to a pyramidal traffic cone, which is similar in shape and well known in the art. The mounting assembly is flexible and would accommodate any known traffic cone, particularly one of very similar shape (both a cone and a pyramid being a tapered construction).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Murphy (US 2,383,881), Kuo (US 2006/0266274), Henderson (US 2013/0255122), Hopkins et al. (US 5,335,889), Inventor (KR-20-0394478), McIIlwaine et al. (GB 2,338,017), Birchumshaw (WO 2004/103770), and Sato et al. (JP 2024-29325), disclose similar inventions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT GRABOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3518. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm.
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, Daniel Troy, can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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.
/KYLE R GRABOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637