DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal phraseology (“means”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "or the like" renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (KR 10-2011-0123539) in view of Hutchins et al. (U.S. Patent 6,866,394).
Jang discloses a vehicle lane separator (1) having a body and a generally prismatic shape (Figure 1, for example) with a plurality of cavities (5, 6, 7, 9). There is a releasably coupled electronic device (5, 6, 7, 9) that is able to detect vehicles (abstract, for example). There is no patentable distinction between traffic lanes; i.e., bicycle or general traffic. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned anywhere desired for desired measurements. There is a sensor (5, 6) and control unit (9), as well as a wireless communications module to send data (abstract, for example). There is an autonomous power supply means (7). Jang acquires vehicular data, but is silent regarding detecting the number of vehicles. Hutchins teaches a vehicle lane separator that can optionally detect the number of vehicles (column 13, lines 62-64).
Regarding claim 9, Jang teaches reflecting waves, but does not specify radar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used radar, as this is a well-known reflecting wave technology.
Regarding claim 10, there is a battery (7); however, it is not specified to be rechargeable. The examiner takes Official notice that it is well known to use rechargeable batteries in order to reduce waste. For this reason, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a rechargeable battery.
Regarding claim 11, the examiner takes Official notice that GPS is well known to use with traffic data analysis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a GPS location module configured for this purpose in order to provide location data in conjunction with the additional data as desired.
Regarding claim 12, the cavities in the casing house the components. The wire is deemed inherent in order to connect the battery to the adjacent components. The casing appears to be a unitary structure; however, there is no patentable distinction between a single and plural casings. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used separate casings in order to best accommodate the components as desired.
Regarding claim 13, Jang does not specify rubber; however, Hutchins that it is well known to use rubber as a lane separator material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used this material in order to obtain a sufficiently durable and corrosion resistant separator, as taught by Hutchins.
Regarding claim 14, because data is transmitted, an external server is deemed to be inherent. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an external server and corresponding software in order to properly use the transmitted data.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references teach lane separators.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY S HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-6989. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7:30.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at 571 272-0547. 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.
GARY S. HARTMANN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3671
/GARY S HARTMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
