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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 9-15 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the aforementioned claims set forth a series of physical structures/configurations that are well beyond that which is disclosed within the Gibson and Martinez references (discussed in greater depth infra), which is the prior art combination closest to Applicants’ claimed invention, and there would be no obvious reason to modify Gibson and Martinez to the extent necessary to satisfy each of Applicants’ pertinent limitations.
With respect to claim 2 (and claim 3 depending therefrom), the provision of a reflector panel and a diffuser panel within a sign assembly is well known, but providing such a combination of materials wherein the reflector panel is positioned “adjacent” the diffuser panel would interfere with the Gibson structure shown in fig. 2, which distinctly shows a LED light panel 13 (described as reflective at para. 56) being separated from diffused/prismatic panel 14 by the intervening control console 12 element. Due to this explicitly shown arrangement of parts, there is no way to achieve the particular configuration sought within Applicants’ claim 2 without deconstructing/adversely affecting the Gibson assembly.
With respect to claim 9 (and claims 10-15 depending therefrom), the provision of a light concentrator element is well known, but there is no guarantee that such a material would perform well within the Gibson assembly, given Gibson’s carefully arranged combination of a plurality of layered elements (see the configuration shown in fig. 2). Further note that Gibson is drawn to a traffic control sign designed to be optimally visible to motorists while driving. Note that a modification such as that which would be necessary to satisfy Applicants’ claim 9 requirements could adversely affect the ultimate visibility of the overall Gibson sign assembly and its illuminated wording formed thereon, presenting a potential danger to motorists.
In view of the foregoing, the modifications necessary to satisfy each of Applicants’ claims 2 and 9 limitations would be likely to render the Gibson assembly incapable of continuing to operate/behave in the particular manner set forth within the reference itself (given the particularly sensitive nature of such optical traffic safety sign assemblies), which would be strongly indicative of an application of improper hindsight reasoning.
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 1-21 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.
The claim 1 recitation of “edge-lighting relationship” is unclear. Exactly what structure/configuration is sought? Do Applicants simply wish for one or more edges of the sign to be illuminated? Please review/revise/clarify.
Claims 1 and 17 recite the limitation "the indicia to be illuminated". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claim 4 recitation of “the indicia carrier” is unclear, as it is unknown whether Applicants actually intend to recite “the indicia carrier panel”, or conversely, are attempting to define a new and distinct carrier element. Please review/revise/clarify.
Claim 11 contains the trademark/trade name “Fresnel”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe an internal reflector element, but the name “Fresnel” presently exists as live trademark serial no. 87258877. Accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claims 2-3, 5-10, 12-16 and 18-21 are rejected as depending (directly or indirectly) from rejected independent claim 1.
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.
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, 4-8 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0012486 to Gibson et al. (“Gibson”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,363,641 to Martinez (“Martinez”).
Regarding claim 1, Gibson discloses a portable (per para. 10, traffic control sign assembly 10 can be hand held by a person; note that this renders it “portable”) illuminated (para. 10) sign (e.g. traffic control sign assembly 10, as shown in fig. 1 and discussed at para. 50), comprising: i) a sign portion (e.g. sign 11, as shown in fig. 1 and discussed at para. 51), the sign portion (11) comprising (fig. 1) indicia (e.g. “STOP” wording, as shown in fig. 1), and ii) an internal light source comprising one or more LEDs (e.g. LED lights 22, as shown in fig. 2 and discussed at para. 56) in edge-lighting relationship with (compare figs. 1-2; note that at least the left/right edges of sign 11 will be illuminated) a diffuser panel (e.g. light-diffusing panels 14, as shown in fig. 2 and discussed at para. 51) underlying a visible area (figs. 1-2; note that light-diffusing panels 14 extend vertically above and below the aforementioned “STOP” wording) of the indicia (aforementioned “STOP” wording) to be illuminated (e.g. illuminated via aforementioned LED lights 22); and iii) a handle (e.g. handle assembly 16) affixed to (fig. 1) the sign portion (11).
Gibson does not disclose the handle (16) comprising a power source for the internal light source (22).
Martinez teaches the concept of providing a handle (e.g. handle housing 30, as shown in fig. 1) comprising a power source (per col. 2, line 45, element 30 is also considered to be a “battery housing”) for an internal light source (e.g. light 22, as shown in fig. 3).
Given that Gibson and Martinez both concern handheld traffic control sign assemblies, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the Martinez handle battery housing teachings to the Gibson handle assembly 16, in order to provide the benefit of yielding a resultant Gibson assembly in which its batteries are easily accessible whenever they need to be replaced.
Regarding claim 4, Gibson in view of Martinez discloses the sign of claim 1, further comprising an indicia carrier panel (e.g. Gibson light panel 13, as shown in fig. 2 and discussed at para. 52) positioned between (Gibson fig. 2) the indicia (aforementioned Gibson “STOP” wording) and the diffuser panel (Gibson 14), the indicia (aforementioned Gibson “STOP” wording) affixed to (Gibson fig. 2) the indicia carrier (Gibson 13).
Regarding claim 5, Gibson in view of Martinez discloses the sign of claim 4, wherein the indicia carrier panel (Gibson 13) and the diffuser panel (Gibson 14) have a common shape and size (Gibson fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Gibson in view of Martinez discloses the sign of claim 4, wherein the indicia (aforementioned Gibson “STOP” wording), the indicia carrier panel (Gibson 13), and the diffuser panel (Gibson 14) have a common shape and size (Gibson fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Gibson in view of Martinez discloses the sign of claim 1, wherein one or more weather tight seals (per Gibson para. 65, the traffic control sign assembly 10 is water tight) are provided along a perimeter (e.g. outer periphery, as shown in Gibson fig. 1) of the sign portion (Gibson 11).
Regarding claim 8, Gibson in view of Martinez discloses the sign of claim 1, wherein a weather tight sealing element (per Gibson para. 65, the traffic control sign assembly 10 is water tight) spans a width (Gibson fig. 1) of the sign portion (Gibson 11) and extends around a perimeter (e.g. outer periphery, as shown in Gibson fig. 1) of the sign portion (Gibson 11).
Regarding claim 16, Gibson in view of Martinez discloses the sign of claim 1, the sign portion (Gibson 11) further comprising a frame (e.g. Gibson control console 12, as shown in fig. 2) surrounding (Gibson fig. 2) the indicia (aforementioned Gibson “STOP” wording).
Regarding claim 17, Gibson in view of Martinez discloses the sign of claim 16, wherein the frame (Gibson 12) defines the visible area (Gibson fig. 2) of the indicia (aforementioned Gibson “STOP” wording) to be illuminated (illuminated via aforementioned Gibson LED lights 22).
Regarding claim 18, Gibson in view of Martinez discloses the sign of claim 16, wherein the frame (Gibson 12) seals the sign portion (Gibson 11) in a weather tight manner (per Gibson para. 65, the traffic control sign assembly 10 is water tight).
Regarding claim 19, Gibson in view of Martinez discloses the sign of claim 16, wherein the handle (Gibson 16) is affixed to (Gibson fig. 1) the frame (Gibson 12).
Regarding claim 20, Gibson in view of Martinez discloses the sign of claim 1, wherein the indicia (aforementioned Gibson “STOP” wording) comprise two indicia (e.g. recitations of “STOP” on opposing sides of Gibson traffic sign 11, as shown in fig. 2), each of the two indicia (aforementioned recitations of “STOP” on opposing sides of Gibson traffic sign 11) positioned on a respective opposite side (Gibson fig. 2) of the diffuser panel (Gibson 14).
Regarding claim 21, Gibson in view of Martinez discloses the sign of claim 20, wherein a respective indicia carrier panel (Gibson 13) is positioned between (Gibson fig. 2) each indicia (aforementioned Gibson “STOP” wording) and the diffuser panel (Gibson 14), each indicia (aforementioned Gibson “STOP” wording) affixed to (Gibson fig. 2) a respective indicia carrier panel (Gibson 13).
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