DETAILED ACTION
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-13, 16, 18-19, and 22, 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.
Independent claim 12 recites “wherein the top coupler is a clip comprising jaws”, however “the top coupler” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim. It is unclear whether its referring to the first coupler, second coupler, or an additional coupler.
Claim 16 is also indefinite as it recites “at least one of the first ring is an adjustable ring”, which is unclear as it only lists the “first ring” and thus “at least” is indefinite.
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 12, 16, 18, and 19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Elmer (US 4,157,801).
In respect to claims 12 and 18, although indefinite for the reasons stated in the 35 USC 112(b) rejection above, Elmer discloses a mounting assembly comprising: a first coupler (top coupler) 7 configured to couple to a sign; a first ring 1 coupled to the first coupler 7 (sized to fit around an upright conical portion of a traffic cone); a second coupler 15 configured to (indirectly, via the first coupler 7) couple to a sign; a second ring 2 coupled to the second coupler 15 (sized to fit around the upright conical portion of a traffic cone); wherein the first coupler (top coupler) 7 is a clip comprising jaws (Fig. 1).
In respect to claim 16, although unclear for the reasons stated above, Elmer discloses that the top ring is “adjustable” e.g. it may be deconstrued, as broadly recited.
In respect to claim 19, although the circular rings are specifically able to be fit around a conical upright, absent further defining language, the circular rings are capable of fitting over a pyramidal 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.
Claims 1 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dawson (GB 2,213,854) in view of Michaelis (US 5,407,167).
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. 3); a bottom coupler 21 coupled to the sign and a bottom ring 23 coupled to the bottom coupler (Fig. 3); 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).
Dawson does not disclose that the top coupler is a clip comprising jaws, however, Michaelis teaches a similar means of attaching a sign (“document”) 48 to an object 40 with a ring 11, the means to attach the sign comprising a clip 16 with jaws (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the direct connection between the sign and ring (e.g. a bore) taught in Dawson with a clip in view of Michaelis to selectively attach a sing to the ring (Abstract).
In respect to claims 7 and 8, Dawson further 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. Furthermore, it is readily inferred that they are “rigid” when stiffly engaging the cone.
In respect to claim 9, Dawson discloses that the upright portion is conical (Fig. 1).
In respect to claim 10, Dawson in view of Michaelis substantially teach the claimed invention for the reasons stated above including a traffic cone with a conical upright portion, but do not teach 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).
Claims 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dawson (GB 2,213,854) in view of Michaelis (US 5,407,167) as applied to claim 1 above, and additionally in view of Lopa (US 7,284,732).
Dawson in view of Michaelis substantially teach the claimed invention, but do not disclose that top coupler further comprising a biasing member, however, Lopa teaches a very similar invention to Michaelis, and further teaches that similar couplers (including a spring clip similar to Michaelis) 26 (Fig. 2) may be used on the top ring, including one with a biasing member (leftmost clip, as is well-known in the art). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the integral spring clip taught in Dawson and Michaelis with a clip with a biasing member in view of Lopa. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, namely, simple substitute of one well known clip for another (all being suitable for the same purpose as in Michaelis).
Claims 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elmer (US 4,157,801) in view of Lopa (US 7,284,732).
Elmber substantially discloses the claimed invention, but do not disclose that top coupler further comprising a biasing member, however, Lopa teaches a very similar invention to Elmer, and further teaches that similar couplers 26 (Fig. 2) may be used on the top ring, including one with a biasing member (leftmost clip, as is well-known in the art). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the integral spring clip taught in Elmer with a clip with a biasing member in view of Lopa. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, namely, simple substitute of one well known clip for another (all being suitable for the same purpose as in Michaelis).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. None of the cited prior art discloses or teaches all of the elements of claim 1, in combination with the traffic cone. Other references above (e.g. Elmer) disclose links between the rings, however, there is disclosure or teaching of using the support container over a traffic cone.
Claims 13 may be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Both claims depend from claim 12, and none of the cited prior art renders obvious all limitations of claim 12 and additionally that the ring comprising a biasing member.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights