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 .
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Crocker et al. (US 2021/0403030).
With regards to claim 6, Crocker et al. discloses a method for applying a marking material to a roadway surface, comprising: applying a roadway marking material to a roadway surface using a roadway marking applicator (figure 1; paragraph 0023), wherein the roadway surface includes a recessed groove (106) for receiving the marking material ;acquiring contour information of the roadway surface and the recessed groove from a non-contact sensor (10, 20 figure 1; 50, 80 figure 5); based on the contour information, identifying at least one physical feature of the recessed groove (paragraph 0011); identifying an alignment between the physical feature of the groove and the roadway marking applicator (paragraph 0012); and adjusting a position of the roadway marking applicator relative to the recessed groove allowing the roadway marking material to be applied within confines of the recessed groove (figures 1-8; 0023-0032).
As to claim 7-9, Crocker et al. discloses wherein acquiring contour information comprises acquiring a three-dimensional image of the recessed groove (paragraph 0032; “The laser is constructed and arranged to detect the position of one or more grinding, grooving, rumbling heads in the X, Y and Z position.”); wherein identifying the at least one physical feature of the recessed groove comprises: identifying an edge of the recessed groove (paragraph 0010; “The computer controlled profiler detects the position of one or more grinding, grooving, rumbling heads in the X, Y and Z position.”); and wherein adjusting a position of the marking applicator relative to the recessed groove, comprises: aligning an edge of the roadway marking material as applied by the roadway marking applicator with the edge of the recessed groove (paragraph 0025).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crocker et al. (US 2021/0403030) in view of Charnenka et al. (US 10,113,277).
With regards to claim 1, Crocker et al. discloses an application system for applying a marking material to a roadway surface (figure 1 and 5; paragraph 0023 “It is noted that the laser based computer controlled topographic profiler of the instant invention can be used grinders, water blasting heads and vehicles that apply stripping by providing precise measurements of road profile, before and after cutting or before and after the application of stripping. For ease of illustration, the following illustrations depict the placement of the laser on various grinder heads, but the invention is not limited to use only with grinder heads”), comprising: an applicator (12, 52) configured to apply roadway marking material to a roadway surface; a contour sensor (10, 20 figure 1; 50, 80 figure 5; “topographic profiler”) configured to measure a profile of a groove recessed into a roadway surface; a controller operatively connected to the contour sensor, wherein the controller is configured to: identify a first physical feature of the groove from an output of the contour sensor; and generate an actuator control output to align the applicator with the first physical feature of the groove (abstract and paragraph 0010). Crocker et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Crocker et al. is silent about a carriage connecting the applicator to an application vehicle configured to travel over said roadway surface, the carriage moveable in a direction transverse to a direction of vehicle travel; and an actuator connected to the carriage wherein the actuator adjusts a position of the carriage in response to the actuator control output received from the controller. Charnenka et al. teaches an application system (figure 1) for applying a marking material to a roadways surface including an applicator (4, 5) and a carriage (6) connecting the applicator to an application vehicle configured to travel over said roadway surface, the carriage moveable in a direction transverse to a direction of vehicle travel (col. 1, lines 18-23); and an actuator (7) connected to the carriage wherein the actuator adjusts a position of the carriage in response to the actuator control output received from the controller (col. 3, lines 21-33; col. 5, lines 36-41; figures 1-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Crocker et al. to mound the applicator in a carriage as taught by Charnenka et al., since it would provide an applicator capable of moving transverse of the direction of the vehicle to move the applicator without having to move the entire vehicle.
As to claim 2, Crocker et al. as modified above discloses wherein the applicator comprises one: a marking tape applicator; a paint gun; a ribbon gun; and an epoxy/poly fusion gun (paragraph 0023 “vehicles that apply stripping” and “spray guns 4, 5” figure of Chanenka et al.).
As to claim 3-5, Crocker et al. as modified above discloses wherein the contour sensor comprises a non-contact sensor (figure 1 and 5); and wherein the contour sensor comprises a three-dimensional sensor that generates a three-dimensional profile (paragraph 0032; “The laser is constructed and arranged to detect the position of one or more grinding, grooving, rumbling heads in the X, Y and Z position.”); and wherein the controller is configured to identify an edge of the groove in the roadway surface from the output of the contour sensor (paragraph 0010; “The computer controlled profiler detects the position of one or more grinding, grooving, rumbling heads in the X, Y and Z position.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARIB A OQUENDO whose telephone number is (571)270-7411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5:30pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/CARIB A OQUENDO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678