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 § 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 2-3, 8 and 10 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.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for multiple limitations in the claims, including: i) claims 2-3 recite the limitation "the word"; and ii) claim 10 recites the limitation “the base of the traffic control device”.
The claim 10 recitation of “thereon” is unclear, as it is unknown whether Applicant is referring to the previously recited “traffic control device”, “battery”, “base” of “traffic control device”. Exactly what structure/configuration is sought? Please review/revise/clarify.
Claim 8 is rejected as depending (at least indirectly) from rejected claim 2.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,959,554 to Armstrong et al. (“Armstrong”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0011753 to Ivanovic (“Ivanovic”).
Regarding claim 1, Armstrong discloses a traffic control device (10, as shown in fig. 1) comprising: i) a shaft (e.g. post 15, as shown in fig. 1); ii) a signboard (e.g. sign 16, as shown in fig. 1) affixed to an upper end (fig. 1) of the shaft (15), the signboard (16) having two faces (e.g. face reading “STOP” and face reading “GO”, as shown in figs. 1-2), including: 1) a first face (e.g. face reading “STOP”, as shown in fig. 1) configured to display (fig. 1) a first set of indicia (e.g. “STOP” wording, as shown in fig. 1); and 2) a second face (e.g. face reading “GO”, as shown in figs. 1-2) configured to display (figs. 1-2) a second set of indicia (e.g. “GO” wording, as shown in figs. 1-2); and iii) a removable (fig. 3; note that 12-volt battery 29 may easily be removed by disconnecting its terminals from leads; also note that standard 12-volt batteries are generally inserted into and removed from automobile engine compartments) and rechargeable (col. 3, line 32 ) battery (e.g. 12-volt batteries 29, as shown in fig. 3 and discussed at col. 3, line 30) being affixed to (fig. 3) a battery connector (e.g. leads shown in fig. 3) at a base (14, as shown in figs. 2-3) of the shaft (15).
Armstrong does not disclose: i) its first set of indicia (aforementioned “STOP” wording) being displayed via LEDs and comprising a first set of LED signal lights; or ii) it second set of indicia (aforementioned “GO” wording) being displayed via LEDs and comprising a second set of LED signal lights.
Ivanovic teaches the concept of providing: i) a first set of indicia (e.g. “STOP” wording, as shown in fig. 1) displayed via LEDs (e.g. illumination elements provided on side shown in fig. 1, as discussed at para. 19; note that such illumination elements may be provided in the form of LEDs) and comprising a first set of LED signal lights (e.g. para. 19 LED illumination elements associated with “STOP” indicia); and ii) a second set of indicia (e.g. “GO” wording, as shown in fig. 2) displayed via LEDs (e.g. illumination elements provided on side shown in fig. 2, as discussed at para. 19; note that such illumination elements may be provided in the form of LEDs) and comprising a second set of LED signal lights (para. 19 LED illumination elements associated with “GO” indicia).
Given that Armstrong and Ivanovic both concern traffic control devices bearing opposing sides reading “STOP” and “GO”, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Ivanovic’s LED illumination teachings to the opposing faces of Armstrong’s traffic control device 10, in order to provide the benefit of yielding a resultant assembly in which respective sides of the Armstrong circular panel 16 are more easily visible.
Regarding claim 2, Armstrong in view of Ivanovic discloses the traffic control device of claim 1, wherein the first set of indicia (Armstrong “STOP” wording) on the first face (Armstrong face reading “STOP”) comprises the word “STOP” (Armstrong fig. 1) in red (Ivanovic para. 21) LEDs (Ivanovic para. 19), and the first set of LED signal lights (Ivanovic para. 19 LED illumination elements associated with “STOP” indicia) on the first face (Armstrong face reading “STOP”) comprise red LED signal lights (Ivanovic para. 21).
Regarding claim 3, Armstrong in view of Ivanovic discloses the traffic control device of claim 2, wherein the second set of indicia (Armstrong “GO” wording) on the second face (Armstrong face reading “GO”) comprises the word “GO” (Armstrong figs. 1-2) in yellow (per Ivanovic para. 22, a coloring may be utilized as desired) LEDs (Ivanovic para. 19), and the second set of LED signal lights (Ivanovic para. 19 LED illumination elements associated with “GO” indicia) on the second face (Armstrong face reading “GO”) comprise yellow (per Ivanovic para. 22, a coloring may be utilized as desired) LED signal lights (Ivanovic para. 19).
Regarding claim 4, Armstrong in view of Ivanovic discloses the traffic control device of claim 1, wherein the first set of LED signal lights (Ivanovic para. 19 LED illumination elements associated with “STOP” indicia) and the second set of LED signal lights (Ivanovic para. 19 LED illumination elements associated with “GO” indicia) each comprise two LED signal lights (Ivanovic para. 21).
Regarding claim 5, Armstrong in view of Ivanovic discloses the traffic control device of claim 1, wherein the first set of LED signal lights (Ivanovic para. 19 LED illumination elements associated with “STOP” indicia) and the second set of LED signal lights (Ivanovic para. 19 LED illumination elements associated with “GO” indicia) each are configured to flash (note that LED lighting may be flashed or turned on/off as desired).
Regarding claim 8, Armstrong in view of Ivanovic discloses the traffic control device of claim 3, further comprising a mechanical rotor (e.g. Armstrong motor discussed at col. 2, line 39) configured to rotate the shaft (Armstrong 15) 180 degrees (Armstrong col. 2, lines 40-44) upon activation of a switch (e.g. Armstrong control button 17, as shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Armstrong in view of Ivanovic discloses the traffic control device of claim 1, wherein the removable and rechargeable battery (Armstrong 12-volt batteries) is a battery configured for separate use with a compatible power tool (note that 12-volt batteries may be utilized with separate power tools as desired).
Regarding claim 10, Armstrong in view of Ivanovic discloses the traffic control device of claim 1, wherein the removable and rechargeable battery (Armstrong 12-volt batteries) is the base (Armstrong 14, as shown in figs. 2-3) of the traffic control device (Armstrong 10), and the shaft (Armstrong 15) and signboard (Armstrong 16) are configured to rest thereon (compare Armstrong figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 11, Armstrong in view of Ivanovic discloses the traffic control device of claim 1, wherein the first face (Armstrong face reading “STOP”) is configured to change displayed text in first set of indicia (Armstrong “STOP” wording) between two messages in an alternating manner (per Armstrong col. 1, lines 26-27, the word “STOP” may be presented in a plurality of languages as desired), and wherein the second face (Armstrong face reading “GO”) is configured to change displayed text in the second set of indicia (Armstrong “GO” wording) in the alternating manner (per Armstrong col. 1, lines 23-24, the word “GO” may be presented in a plurality of languages as desired).
Regarding claim 12, Armstrong in view of Ivanovic discloses the traffic control device of claim 11, further comprising a switch (e.g. Armstrong control button 17, as shown in fig. 1) configured to change the displayed text in each of the first set of indicia (Armstrong “STOP” wording) and the second set of indicia (Armstrong “GO” wording).
Regarding claim 13, Armstrong in view of Ivanovic discloses the traffic control device of claim 1, wherein the traffic control device (Armstrong 10) has a height (Armstrong fig. 1).
Armstrong in view of Ivanovic does not disclose said height (Armstrong fig. 1) being at least eight feet.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the instant matter, the particular chosen height value will determine the ultimate degree to which the device may be seen by ostensible vehicle operators.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a height value as desired, in order to provide the benefit of yielding a resultant Armstrong in view of Ivanovic assembly that is visible to ostensible vehicle drivers as desired.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong in view of Ivanovic and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,654,705 to Houten et al. (“Houten”).
Regarding claim 6, Armstrong in view of Ivanovic discloses the traffic control device of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the first set of LED signal lights (Ivanovic para. 19 LED illumination elements associated with “STOP” indicia) and the second set of LED signal lights (Ivanovic para. 19 LED illumination elements associated with “GO” indicia) each comprise one or more shades arranged over the LED signal lights (Ivanovic para. 19) to block sunlight.
Houten teaches the concept of providing a shade (34, as shown in fig. 2) over an LED light (col. 6, lines 61-64).
Given that Armstrong and Houten both concern traffic regulation signs designed to provide information to motorists and pedestrians, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the Houten shade 34 teachings to the Armstrong sign 16 as desired, in order to provide the benefit of yielding a resultant Armstrong sign assembly presenting information in a clear and unobstructed manner.
Regarding claim 7, Armstrong in view of Ivanovic discloses the traffic control device of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the first set of indicia (Armstrong “STOP” wording) and the second set of indicia (Armstrong “GO” wording) each comprise one or more shades arranged over the indicia (aforementioned Armstrong “STOP” and “GO” wording) to block sunlight.
Houten teaches the concept of providing a shade (34, as shown in fig. 2) over an LED light (col. 6, lines 61-64).
For the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 6, supra, it would have been obvious to apply the Houten shade 34 teachings to the Armstrong sign 16 as desired.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN V LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5052. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5:00PM.
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 J. 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.
/JUSTIN V LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637