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 the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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, 7 and 8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 7 and 8, these claims recite the phrase "preferably" which renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). See also 2173.05(c) - Numerical Ranges and Amounts Limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 7 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 1, 4-6, 9 and 10 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The instant invention is related to a road traffic monitoring robot image acquisition device installation.
Applicant has uniquely claimed distinct features in the independent claim 1, which in combination with the other features are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious over the prior art of record. The distinct features include “the fixing plate includes a fixed context video camera and a plurality of selectable fixing positions for each optical device of the plurality of optical devices, said selectable fixing positions are arranged in such a manner as to form a plurality of pre-established alignments between the fixed context video camera and one or more optical devices selected from the plurality of optical devices, said pre-established alignments and said selectable positions are configured according to a correspondence chart, said correspondence chart supplies a plurality of pre-established alignments depending on the number of and the width of the traffic lanes to be monitored by the robot, the position of and the distance from the infraction line of said acquisition system, and the number of and the focal lengths of the optical lenses necessary for coverage of said traffic lanes..”
Rombaux et al. (EP3012652B1), the closest prior art of record, discloses a road traffic control unit comprising a mounting plate positioned between a speed measuring device and each imaging device of the unit. The mounting plate determines the orientation of the optical axis of the imaging device relative to the radio frequency axis of the speed measuring device, with at least one adjustment range. Preferably, several mounting plates are available, each dedicated to a range of possible values for a roadside distance that is used during the installation of the road traffic control unit at the edge of a road. The mounting plate used ensures that a monitored vehicle is captured in an image taken by the imaging device, with its license plate appearing under satisfactory legibility conditions.
However, Rombaux, either, individually or in combination with other prior art of record (See PTO-892), fails to anticipate or render obvious the above-cited limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for additional references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABIO S LIMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0625. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM (EST).
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, JAMIE ATALA can be reached on (571)272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FABIO S LIMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486