DETAILED ACTION
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 1-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laemmel (DE 103-23-021) (See NPL for English Translation).
In respect to claims 1 and 8, Laemmel discloses a crash impact attenuator carried on a vehicle comprising: an energy-absorbing portion 7 and a frame 11 for supporting the energy-absorbing portion; a “backup frame” 5 adapted to join the crash impact attenuator to a vehicle 4 (0011; Fig. 1); a sign holder frame 25 extending upwardly from the backup frame 5, adapted for support of a first sign (rotatable arrow and warning lights) (0014); and at least one upwardly extending support post “vertical guide” 9 extending from the backup frame 5 (Fig. 2). It is notable that the backup frame supports a second informational sign 6 (including warning lights 10), however, the claim does not explicitly recite a second information sign, only the capability to support one. Although also not explicitly required, Laemmel discloses that the second sign may be behind the sign holder frame 25 from the view of a rearwardly approaching motorist’s point of view (Fig. 1).
In respect to claim 2, Laemmel discloses that the upwardly extending support post 9 may be raised into a display position, with the second informational sign 6 being positioned above the sign holder frame 25 (Fig. 2), and may be lowered to a stowed position behind the sign holder frame.
In respect to claim 3, Laemmel discloses warning lights, but not explicitly an “arrowboard” on the second informational sign, however, as detailed above, the extending support post is capable of holding such a sign.
In respect to claim 4, Laemmel discloses that the upwardly extending support 9 is “guide element” on a “vertical guide” 8, which one of ordinary skill in the art understands to encompass at least a broad definition of a “telescoping construction”.
In respect to claims 5 and 7, Laemmel discloses a hydraulic powered vertical lift 24 which raises and lowers the upwardly extending post (0013-0014); the same hydraulic powered vertical lift 24 also rotates the crash impact attenuator into both travel/storage (Fig. 1) and deployed orientations (Fig. 2); the existence of a hydraulic lift necessitates an on-board hydraulic system, as is immediately evident to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In respect to claims 9-11, Laemmel discloses the claimed invention for the reasons stated above.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laemmel (DE 103-23-021) (See NPL for English Translation) in view of Boyle (US 2021/0381179).
Laemmel substantially discloses the invention, but does not explicitly disclose that there are two upwardly extending support posts (although one is not explicit either, as there no disclosure to the number, and the side view does not provide a number), however, Boyle teaches a very similar invention with an almost identical system, comprising a frontal first sign 106 and an elevatable rear sign 107, which is elevated on upwardly extending supports (shown without enumeration in Figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the present application to provide the upwardly extending supports in Laemmel as two supports in view of Boyle to provide stability. 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 two posts for stability.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laemmel (DE 103-23-021) (See NPL for English Translation) in view of Maus et al. (US 11,400,884).
Laemmel substantially discloses the invention, but does not explicitly disclose the warning lights forming the second informational sign form a “arrowboard” (i.e. the lights are in the shape of an arrow), however, Maus et al. teach a very similar invention, wherein a raised information sign 22 formed of warning lights, is formed in the shape of an arrow forming a “arrowboard” (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the present application to provide the warning lights in the second informational sign taught in Laemmel in the shape of an arrow in view of Maus et al. to provide direction. 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 using warning lights in the form of an arrow to indicate a direction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rossmann (US 2001/0011827), Carisson (US 2006/0170228), and Roy et al. (US 11,008,717), 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