DETAILED ACTION
This action is a non-final, first office action on the merits in response to applicant’s communication filed on 12/20/2024, wherein claims 1-26 are currently pending.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) based upon an application filed in New Zealand. The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. NZ810568, filed on 4/30/2024 (effective filing date).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/20/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informality: the phrase "the base of an upper road upper road cone of the pair of stacked road cones" contains a duplicated recitation of "upper road." Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informality: the phrase "having road cone storage area" omits an article before "road cone storage area." Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 23 and 24 are objected to because each recites the preamble "A road cone deployment mechanism as claimed in claim 1," whereas claim 1 is directed to "A road cone deployment and collection system." The inconsistent preamble makes it unclear whether Applicant intends these claims to depend from claim 1 or from claim 20. Appropriate correction is required. See also the rejections of these claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a road cone retention and release mechanism" in claim 1;
"retention member" in claims 3 and 9;
"road cone separator " in claim 9;
"road cone engaging elements" in claim 12;
"road cone knock down device" in claim 14;
“road cone separation mechanism” in claim 20;
“translation mechanism” in claim 23; and
“spinner” in claim 24.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 112(f) limitation:
"a road cone retention and release mechanism” in claim 1 - The corresponding structure disclosed in the specification is the pair of opposed deployment mechanisms 14 and 15, each comprising a claw 16 having a retention member 17 and an arm 18 movable about a fixed pivot point 19, a linkage 20, a further linkage 23 rotatable about a fixed pivot point 24, and pneumatic cylinders 21 and 22 (Par. 0048 to Par. 0052), and in the alternative embodiment the wedges 44 and 45 driven by actuators 46 and 47 together with the retention elements 48 and 49 driven by actuators 50 and 51 (Par. 0063 to Par. 0064).
"one or more retention member" in claims 3 and 9 - The corresponding structure is the retention member 17 that moves with the claw 16 about the fixed pivot point 19 (Par. 0049, Par. 0051), and in the alternative embodiment the retention elements 48 and 49 driven by actuators 50 and 51 (Par. 0063).
"one or more road cone separator" in claim 9 - The corresponding structure is the claw 16 in the form of an element of varying radial dimension (Par. 0053), and in the alternative embodiment the wedges 44 and 45 driven by actuators 46 and 47 (Par. 0063 to Par. 0064).
"one or more pairs of road cone engaging elements" in claim 12. - "Elements" is a generic placeholder directly modified by "configured to" plus a function, and no structure is recited. See the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below regarding the corresponding structure.
"a road cone knock down device" in claim 14 - The corresponding structure is the knock down bar 29 that "causes a road cone to be knocked flat during collection so that it may be captured by lance 25" (Par. 0056), which "may be a bar or chain etc." (Par. 0057).
"a road cone separation mechanism" in claim 20 - The corresponding structure is the claw 16 in the form of an element of varying radial dimension, which "separates adjacent road cones as the radial dimension between adjacent road cones increases" (Par. 0053), and in the alternative embodiment the wedges 44 and 45 driven by actuators 46 and 47 (Par. 0063 to Par. 0064).
"a translation mechanism" in claim 23 - "Mechanism" is a generic placeholder directly modified by "configured to" plus a function, and no structure is recited. See the rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below regarding the absence of corresponding structure.
"a spinner" in claim 24 "Spinner" - The corresponding structure is the spinner 38 supported by shaft 36 and rotated by motor 35 via a drive shaft within shaft 36, having a first hook 39 and a second hook 40, together with sensor bar 37 (Par. 0061 to Par. 0062).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 7, 8, 12, 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites "wherein the retention member rotates with the claw." Claim 7 depends from claim 6, which depends from claim 5, which depends from claim 4, which depends from claim 2, which depends from claim 1. No retention member is recited anywhere in that chain. A retention member is introduced only in claims 3 and 9, neither of which is in the chain of dependency of claim 7. Because claim 3 recites a retention member as an optional additional element of the retention and release mechanism rather than as an element inherent in it, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine whether claim 7 requires the mechanism of claim 3, requires some other retention member, or is merely referring to a portion of the claw of claim 4. The scope of claim 7 is therefore indeterminate. Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending claim 7 to depend from claim 3 or by introducing a retention member in the body of claim 7.
For purposes of examination and under MPEP 2173.06, claim 7 is construed as requiring a retention member that forms part of the road cone retention and release mechanism of claim 1, that supports one or more road cones in the upper road cone holding section, and that rotates with the claw recited in claim 4. The specification supports this construction at Par. 0049 and Par. 0051, which describe a claw 16 having a retention member 17 and an arm 18 that "move together about a fixed pivot point 19." The issue is therefore a bounded one. Claim 7 is examined over the prior art below on that construction.
Claim 12 recites "wherein the road cone separator includes one or more pairs of road cone engaging elements configured to separate between adjacent road cones to separate them." The phrase "configured to separate between adjacent road cones to separate them" recites the act of separating twice with two different objects, so that it cannot be determined whether the engaging elements are required to move into the space between adjacent road cones, or to separate the road cones from one another, or both. In addition, the specification does not describe any structure denominated a pair of road cone engaging elements, so the corresponding structure for this 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation cannot be identified. The closest disclosure is the pair of opposed deployment mechanisms 14 and 15 (Par. 0048) and the pair of wedges 44 and 45 (Par. 0063), neither of which is described as a pair of engaging elements that separate between road cones.
For purposes of examination and under MPEP 2173.06, claim 12 is construed as requiring one or more pairs of members that move into the space between the bases of adjacent road cones so as to separate those road cones from each other. The specification supports this construction at Par. 0063 to Par. 0064, and the issue is therefore a bounded one. Claim 12 is examined over the prior art below on that construction.
Claim 21 recites "A road cone deployment mechanism as claimed in claim 20 in the form of a wedge configured to be driven between the bases of a pair of stacked road cones to separate the bases." Read literally, the entire road cone deployment mechanism of claim 20 is in the form of a wedge. The specification describes no embodiment in which the deployment mechanism as a whole is a wedge. It describes wedges 44 and 45 that form part of a larger mechanism together with retention elements 48 and 49 and four actuators (Par. 0063). It therefore cannot be determined whether claim 21 requires the deployment mechanism, or only the road cone separation mechanism recited in claim 20, to be in the form of a wedge.
For purposes of examination and under MPEP 2173.06, claim 21 is construed as requiring the road cone separation mechanism of claim 20 to be in the form of a wedge configured to be driven between the bases of a pair of stacked road cones to separate the bases. The specification supports this construction at Par. 0063 to Par. 0064. Claim 21 is examined over the prior art below on that construction.
Regarding claims 23 and 24, claim 23 recites "wherein the road cone deployment system is extended outwardly from the vehicle in the second configuration." Claim 24 recites "a spinner for moving a road cone laterally with respect to a path of movement of the vehicle." Neither claim 23 nor claim 24 nor claim 1, from which each depends, recites a vehicle. Because the second configuration of claim 23 is defined solely by a spatial relationship to a vehicle that the claim does not require, and because the direction of lateral movement in claim 24 is defined solely by a path of movement of a vehicle that the claim does not require, the scope of each claim is indeterminate. This is not a technical antecedent defect. The recited configuration and the recited direction cannot be evaluated at all without the unrecited vehicle.
Claim 23 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the recited "translation mechanism," interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as set forth above, has no corresponding structure in the specification. The specification states that the road cone deployment and collection systems 2 and 3 "can be transported in a compact retracted configuration (FIGS. 1 to 4) and moved to an extended configuration (system 2 with extended unit 7 in FIGS. 5 and 6)" (Par. 0044), but nowhere describes any structure, material or acts by which that translation is effected.
For purposes of examination and under MPEP 2173.06, claims 23 and 24 are construed as requiring the recited relationships with respect to a vehicle on which the road cone deployment and collection system is carried, and the translation mechanism of claim 23 is construed as requiring any mechanism that moves the system between a transport configuration lying within the envelope of that vehicle and a deployment configuration extending outwardly from that vehicle. The specification supports these constructions at Par. 0044 and Par. 0061 to Par. 0062. Claims 23 and 24 are examined over the prior art below on those constructions.
Claims 8, 22, and 25 are rejected as depending from an indefinite claim.
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;
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Larguier (US 5,525,021) (Cited on the IDS of 12/20/2024).
Regarding Claim 20, Larguier discloses:
a road cone deployment mechanism, comprising (see FIGS. 1 through 4c):
A road cone deployment mechanism for selectively releasing a road cone from a stack of road cones – a supply 8 in the form of a hollow vertical body open at least at its base 28, within which cones 14 "are themselves stacked vertically within the supplies 8 in their usual position, which is to say base downward and are nested within each other," together with a platform 4 disposed below the open base of the supply and having an opening 6 permitting the passage of the base 16 of a cone (Col. 4, Line 57; FIG. 1, supply 8, platform 4, opening 6, cone 14 and base 16; FIG. 3); and
including a road cone separation mechanism configured to separate the bases of adjacent road cones from each other – a fork formed of two substantially horizontal fingers 7 spaced radially apart so as to let pass only the body 15 of a cone and not the base 16, disposed at a height H above the platform 4 at least equal to the thickness of the base of a cone (Larguier, FIG. 2, fingers 7 and height H; FIGS. 4a to 4c, penetration of the fingers between the bases). As to the separating operation, Larguier states that during relative rotation of the supply and the platform about vertical axis 10 "the fingers 7 of said fork then penetrating between the bases of the last cone in the stack and the one immediately above, thereby detaching from the stack the last cone adapted to be disposed on the street," and that "to promote the detachment of the bases of the cones from each other, the fingers 7 will preferably be sharpened at their free ends" (Col. 4, Line 57).
Interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as set forth above, the recited "road cone separation mechanism" covers the disclosed claw 16 of varying radial dimension and the disclosed wedges 44 and 45, and equivalents thereof. The fingers 7 of Larguier are sharpened members driven into the interstice between the bases of two adjacent nested road cones so as to detach one from the other. That is substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result as the disclosed wedges 44 and 45, which Applicant states "may be driven inwardly by actuators 46 and 47 to the position shown in FIG. 18 to separate the road cones" (Par. 0064). The fingers 7 of Larguier are therefore an equivalent of the corresponding structure under MPEP 2183.
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, 3, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michit (US 4,597,706) (Cited on the IDS of 12/20/2024) in view of Larguier (US 5,525,021) (Cited on the IDS of 12/20/2024).
Regarding Claim 1, Michit discloses:
a road cone deployment and collection system (see FIGS. 1 through 4), comprising:
– a machine mounted on the platform of a motorized vehicle 2 for picking up, storing and placing hollow conical road markers 1 in a line along a roadway (Michit, FIG. 1, vehicle 2 and cone marker 1; "a machine which automatically collects hollow conical road markers, stores them, transports them and dispenses them in a line" (Abstract));
a chute having an upper road cone holding section, a rear opening at the bottom of the chute for road cone deployment – a vertical cylindrical magazine 3, open at both ends, within which the cone markers "are stored vertically in these cylinders in their usual position, that is, base downward, and they are stacked one inside the other," (Col. 3, Line 11) the magazine being positioned coaxially over a rigid cylindrical gullet 40 inclined downward and toward the exterior, which gullet "is elongated by a flexible skirt 41 which surrounds the end of the gullet and which includes an opening 42 directed toward the back" (Col. 5, Line 60), (Michit, FIG. 1, cylindrical magazine 3; FIG. 4, gullet 40, flexible skirt 41 and opening 42). As to the operation of the rear opening, Michit states that "when a cone marker is released from the magazine, it falls through the gullet and pushes against the skirt which keeps it upright. As the vehicle advances, the cone marker placed on its base emerges from the skirt through its back opening 42" (Col. 5, Line 65);
a road cone retention and release mechanism configured to: – two stops 44 and 45 situated at two different levels at the lower end of each cylindrical magazine 3, each attached to a lever 46, 47 articulated around a horizontal axle 48, 49, the two levers being linked to each other by a rod 50, together with a cam 51 driven step by step by a motor 52 (Michit, FIG. 4, stops 44 and 45, levers 46 and 47, axles 48 and 49, rod 50, cam 51 and motor 52);
hold a stack of road cones – (Michit, FIG. 4, stops 44 and 45 retaining the stack of cone markers within cylindrical magazine 3; "the other cone markers are retained by the other stop 45 which is engaged below the next cone marker up (second from the bottom)") (Col. 6, Line 26);
separate and release one road cone at a time from the stack to the chute for deployment from the rear opening; and – (Michit, FIG. 4, stops 44 and 45; "Each cylindrical magazine 3 includes, at its lower end, two stops 44 and 45 situated at two different levels to release cone markers one by one. … They are mechanically linked such that one is pulled out of the way while the other is engaged within the cylinder and vice versa. … Thus when the lower stop 44 is withdrawn, the bottom cone marker can drop into the gullet while the other cone markers are retained by the other stop 45 which is engaged below the next cone marker up (second from the bottom)" (Col. 6, Line 26); "When the cam turns, it presses against the lever 46 which pulls back the lower stop 44 and releases the bottom cone marker") (Col. 6, Line 31).
Michit does not appear to disclose "a front opening at the bottom of the chute for road cone collection" or "add a road cone to a stack of road cones collected from the front opening of the chute and raised to be added to a stack of road cones."
Michit does disclose the mechanical collection of road cones from ahead of the advancing vehicle and their delivery into a cylindrical magazine 3. However, in Michit the collected cone marker is carried up a chain conveyor 25 and ejected at the top of that conveyor against "an inclined gullet 36 which is open toward the front," which gullet surmounts "the open upper end of the magazine," so that the collected cone marker enters the magazine from above rather than through an opening at the bottom of the magazine (Col. 5, Line 20). Michit further indexes a different magazine into position between the filling station and the unloading station by rotating the carousel formed by shaft 4 and cylinders 3.
In the same field of endeavor, Larguier discloses:
a front opening at the bottom of the chute for road cone collection – a supply 8 in the form of a hollow vertical body open at least at its base 28 to permit the passage of the base 16 of a cone, disposed above a platform 4 having an opening 6, into which base opening a cone is introduced from ahead of the advancing vehicle (Larguier, FIG. 1, supply 8, platform 4 and opening 6). As to the direction of collection, Larguier states that spear 20 occupies "a first so-called low horizontal position parallel to the direction of movement of the vehicle at a distance from the ground substantially equal to half the diameter of a cone so as to be able to penetrate, when the vehicle advances, a cone which lies on the ground in alignment" (Col. 6, Line 30); and
add a road cone to a stack of road cones collected from the front opening of the chute and raised to be added to a stack of road cones. – (Larguier, FIGS. 5a to 5c, spear 20, fingers 7, supply 8; "the spear 20, after having penetrated within the cone, this penetration having been detected by means of a suitable detection member, erects the cone by pivoting about its pivotal axis 21 thereby picking up the cone and bringing the cone either directly above the upper surface of the platform into contact with the lower surface of the fingers 7 of the fork"; "Thus, the cone raised by the means described above penetrates between the fingers 7 of the fork and then into the supply which is above it without having to raise the cones already introduced which themselves are supported by the fork") (Col. 6, Lines 36-54).
Additionally, Larguier discloses a vertical hollow supply 8 storing cones nested one within another base downward (Larguier, FIG. 1, supply 8), a plurality of such supplies disposed regularly about a vertical axis of rotation 10 to form a turret 9 (Larguier, claim 2: “a plurality of said supplies regularly spaced about said vertical axis and forming a turret”), overturning means 19 in the form of a bar disposed perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle at a height less than the total height of a cone (Larguier, FIGS. 7A, 7C, 9, overturning means 19), and a device transformable between a travelling position within roadway clearance and a working position located to one side of the vehicle (Larguier, FIG. 3), corresponding respectively to the cylindrical magazine 3, the carousel of magazines on shaft 4, the crossbar and uprights 33, and the transformable passive transport and operational positions disclosed by Michit as set forth above. Larguier therefore operates in substantially the same structural environment as Michit, such that incorporating the base entry and spear of Larguier into the magazine of Michit would require no substantial reconfiguration of the vertical cone magazine, the bottom escapement, the vehicle mounting or the cone guiding structures already present in Michit.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the machine of Michit so that a collected road cone is raised through the open lower end of the cylindrical magazine and added to the nested stack held therein from below, as taught by Larguier, in order to load and unload a single magazine at a single station and thereby avoid indexing the carousel between a separate filling station and a separate unloading station. Larguier teaches that this is the point of using the same members for both operations, stating that its object is to provide a device "by means of fixed emplacement members that do not require working in synchronism, the emplacement means being adapted to be reused for collecting" (Col. 2, Line 18), and that "The interest of such a gathering device is to use identical means to those used for positioning the cone" (Col. 6, Line 65).
Such modification would have been the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); MPEP 2143(I)(D). A person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both references store cones nested base downward in a vertical hollow body that is open at its lower end, both retain the stack on members that enter beneath the base of a cone, both collect cones from ahead of a forwardly advancing vehicle by inserting an elongate member into the hollow interior of a cone that has been knocked down by a transverse bar, and both mount their cone handling structures on a removable unit carried at the side of a roadwork vehicle.
As so modified, the cylindrical magazine of Michit, together with the gullet and skirt beneath it, defines an upright passage having an upper region in which a nested stack of road cones is held on the two stops, a front aperture at its lower end through which a road cone raised by the spear enters the stack from below as the vehicle advances, and a rear aperture at its lower end through which a road cone released from the bottom of that stack emerges onto the roadway behind the apparatus. The combination performs both the collection function of Larguier and the deployment function of Michit through a single chute.
Regarding Claim 3, Michit/Larguier discloses:
The limitations of claim 1, which are met as set forth above.
Michit further discloses:
wherein the road cone retention and release mechanism includes one or more retention member to support one or more road cones in the upper road cone holding section or release one or more road cone – (Michit, FIG. 4, lower stop 44; "Thus when the lower stop 44 is withdrawn, the bottom cone marker can drop into the gullet" (Col. 6, Line 25)).
Regarding Claim 9, Michit/Larguier discloses:
The limitations of claim 1, which are met as set forth above.
Michit further discloses:
wherein the road cone retention and release mechanism includes one or more retention member to support one or more road cones in the upper road cone holding section or release one or more road cone and one or more road cone separator. --– Michit discloses two distinct retention members “stops” at two different levels. Lower stop 44 supports the bottom cone marker within the magazine and is withdrawn to release it, and upper stop 45 is engaged beneath the second cone marker from the bottom, that is, between the bases of the bottom cone marker and the one above it (Michit, FIG. 4, stops 44 and 45; "two stops 44 and 45 situated at two different levels to release cone markers one by one" and "the other cone markers are retained by the other stop 45 which is engaged below the next cone marker up (second from the bottom)" (Col. 6, Lines 15-30)).
Regarding Claim 10, Michit/Larguier discloses:
The limitations of claim 9, which are met as set forth above.
Michit further discloses:
wherein the retention member is separate from the road cone separator. – Stops 44 and 45 are separate members mounted at two different levels on separate levers 46 and 47, articulated about separate axles 48 and 49, and connected only through rod 50 (Michit, FIG. 4, stops 44 and 45, levers 46 and 47, axles 48 and 49, rod 50; "the two stops are each attached to a lever 46, 47 which is articulated around a horizontal axle 48, 49 and the two levers are linked to each other by a rod 50" (Col. 6, Line 20)). Michit further discloses that "They are mechanically linked such that one is pulled out of the way while the other is engaged within the cylinder and vice versa," (Col. 6, Line 18) confirming that the supporting member and the separating member are distinct and separately positioned.
Regarding Claim 13, Michit/Larguier discloses:
The limitations of claim 1, which are met as set forth above.
Larguier further discloses:
including a guide that centralises road cones entering the front opening of the chute –
a guide that centralises road cones entering the front opening in the form of arms 22 which converge between the overturning means 19 and the spear 20 (Larguier, FIG. 9, arms 22; "These guide means can be for example constituted of arms 22 … which converge between the overturning means of the cones 19 and the vertical alignment means by pivoting of the spear 20, these arms 22 delimiting a guide path substantially in the shape of a funnel, the inlet of the guide path adjacent the overturning means 19 corresponding to the large end of the tunnel" (Col. 7, Line 22). Larguier further explains the purpose of this structure, stating that "to perfect the gathering device and to improve its reliability, there is integrated with the gathering device guide means for the cones so as to bring these cones into general alignment" (Col. 7, Line 8).
Regarding Claim 14, Michit/Larguier discloses:
The limitations of claim 1, which are met as set forth above.
Larguier further discloses:
including a road cone knock down device to rotate any standing road cone entering the front opening of the chute to a lie down position – overturning means 19 for the cone 14 to lay it on the ground, which "can be as simple as a bar disposed perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle on one of the sides of this latter, and fixed either to the vehicle or to the device," and which "is situated at a height from the street less than the total height of the cone" (Col. 7, Line 8; FIG. 9, overturning means 19). Larguier further discloses that "the cones not knocked over can be knocked over by means of a swinging bar 19 disposed at the inlet of said guide path, or before this latter, in the direction of advance of the vehicle" (Col. 7, Line 18). The overturning means 19 is the structure corresponding to the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation "road cone knock down device" identified above and is an equivalent of the disclosed knock down bar 29, which Applicant states "may be a bar or chain etc."
Regarding Claim 15, Michit/Larguier discloses:
The limitations of claim 14, which are met as set forth above.
Larguier further discloses:
including a lance configured to engage the base of a road cone entering the front opening of the chute – in the form of a spear 20 pivotally mounted about a pivotal axis 21, which in its low horizontal position is disposed "at a distance from the ground substantially equal to half the diameter of a cone so as to be able to penetrate, when the vehicle advances, a cone which lies on the ground in alignment" (Larguier, Col. 6, Line 32; FIGS. 5a to 5c, spear 20 and pivotal axis 21). This limitation requires no modification beyond that set forth for claim 14.
Regarding Claim 16, Michit/Larguier discloses:
The limitations of claim 15, which are met as set forth above.
Larguier further discloses:
wherein the lance is configured to rotate from a lowered to an upright position when a road cone is engaged and lift an acquired road cone to the upper road cone holding section. – As to this operation, Larguier states that the spear 20 can occupy the low horizontal position and "a so-called upper position, in which the spear 20, after having penetrated within the cone, this penetration having been detected by means of a suitable detection member, erects the cone by pivoting about its pivotal axis 21 thereby picking up the cone and bringing the cone either directly above the upper surface of the platform into contact with the lower surface of the fingers 7 of the fork," and that "the cone raised by the means described above penetrates between the fingers 7 of the fork and then into the supply which is above it" (Larguier, Col. 6, Line 35; FIGS. 5a to 5c, spear 20, pivotal axis 21, fingers 7 and supply 8). This limitation requires no modification beyond that set forth for claim 15.
Regarding Claim 17, Michit/Larguier discloses:
The limitations of claim 1, which are met as set forth above.
Michit further discloses:
having road cone storage area to supply stacks of road cones to the chute or receive stacks of road cones from the chute – in the form of the carousel of cylindrical magazines 3 distributed around central vertical shaft 4 and carried on horizontal arms 11, which shaft is driven stepwise so that "after each step each cylinder occupies exactly the place where previously the cylinder which preceded it was" (Michit, Col. 3, Line 55; FIG. 1, cylindrical magazines 3, shaft 4 and arms 11). Michit states that "the shaft 4 and the cylinders 3 form a transfer carrousel permitting the interchange of the cylindrical magazines 3," (Col. 3, Line 57) and that when the magazine at the unloading station is empty "the signal emitted by the electrical contact starts the motor driving the shaft 4 to advance one step and place a full magazine over the gullet 40" (Col. 6, Line 10). This limitation requires no modification beyond that set forth for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 19, Michit/Larguier discloses:
The limitations of claim 1, which are met as set forth above.
Larguier further discloses:
including a guide positioned to guide road cones exiting from the rear opening at the bottom of the chute to laterally shift each road cone – an articulated arm 27 arranged on the vehicle, "said arm having an opening angle variable as a function of the advance of the vehicle, this angle generally opening in the course of the advancement of the vehicle to permit the positioning of cones on the bias" (Col. 8, Line 9; FIGS. 8a to 8f, articulated arm 27). As to its guiding function, Larguier states that "in the course of the displacement of the vehicle, the cones brought by the accompanying means 17, 18 onto the street are controlled by this arm against which they roll to come into position at the free end of this arm" (Col. 8, Line 11).
Regarding Claim 23, Michit/Larguier discloses:
The limitations of claim 1, which are met as set forth above.
Claim 23 is examined on the construction stated in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above.
Michit further discloses:
a translation mechanism configured to translate the road cone deployment system between a first configuration for transport and a second configuration for deployment wherein the road cone deployment system is extended outwardly from the vehicle in the second configuration – in the form of transversal arms 20 mounted on carriage 21 which moves along a track 22 across the vehicle, the arms being articulated on a collar 23 supporting the collection device and "driven in rotation by a motor 24 or by a jack" (Col. 4, Line 7, FIG. 2, collection device 19, arms 20, carriage 21 and track 22). As to the two configurations, Michit states that "A machine according to the invention is transformable to go from passive transport position to operational position. In the passive transport position, it conforms to standard road vehicle dimensions and no instrument extends beyond these bounds. In the collecting position, the collecting device is situated on one side of the vehicle such that it may move along a line of cone markers picking them up," (Col. 2, Line 50) and that "The rotation of the arms allows the raising of the collection device and at the same time to fold it up into the interior of its standard vehicle dimensions for road travel. Conversely, the collection device may be brought out and lowered such that the bottom of the device is slightly above ground level during the phase of collecting the cone markers (Col. 4, Line 9). This limitation requires no modification beyond that set forth for claim 1.
Claims 2, 4-7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michit (US 4,597,706) in view of Larguier (US 5,525,021), and further in view of Reifsnyder et al. (US 2,268,421A), hereinafter “Reifsnyder.”
Regarding Claim 2, Michit/Larguier discloses:
The limitations of claim 1, which are met as set forth above.
However, Michit and Larguier do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the road cone retention and release mechanism includes one or more element of varying radial dimension configured to be positioned between the bases of adjacent road cones and rotated to separate adjacent road cones.
Michit comes closest in that its upper stop 45 is engaged between the bases of the bottom cone marker and the one above it. However, stop 45 is described as semi-circular and is carried on a lever 47 that swings it into and out of the cylinder, and Michit does not describe the stop itself as varying in radial dimension or as being rotated in place between the bases so as to force the bases apart (Col. 6, Line 16).
Reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was concerned, namely separating the lowermost of a stack of nested frustoconical articles, Reifsnyder discloses:
wherein the road cone retention and release mechanism includes one or more element of varying radial dimension configured to be positioned between the bases of adjacent road cones and rotated to separate adjacent road cones — a plurality of rotatable cam members 15 mounted on vertically extending shafts 16 at spaced positions around the periphery of a nested stack, each cam member having a wedge-shaped cam surface 26 with an entering portion 27. Upon rotation of the cam members, the cam surfaces 26 “enter the space between the flanges of the two lowermost cups for separating the same and positively ejecting the lower cup” (Reifsnyder, FIGS. 2, 3 and 6; cam member 15, shaft 16, cam surface 26 and entering portion 27; Col. 3). As shown particularly in FIG. 6, the working perimeter of cam member 15 varies in radial dimension about shaft 16 through the wedge-shaped profile of cam surface 26, whereby rotation progressively presents the separating portion between the adjacent flanges.
Additionally, Reifsnyder discloses a stack of nested articles 10 whose flanged bases are adjacent and spaced apart, an annular inlet flange 33 constricted toward its lower edge for directing the stack into the mechanism, and a bottom outlet 14 extending upwardly at 36 as far as the cam members so that each released article falls vertically from them (Reifsnyder, FIG. 1, stack 10, flange 33, bottom outlet 14 and upward extension 36), corresponding respectively to the nested stack of cone markers, the open upper end of the cylindrical magazine 3, and the gullet 40 with its flexible skirt 41 disclosed by Michit as set forth above. Reifsnyder therefore operates in substantially the same structural environment as Michit, such that substituting the cam member of Reifsnyder for the upper stop of Michit would require no substantial reconfiguration of the magazine, the outlet or the actuating linkage already present in Michit.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ the rotating profiled cam member of Reifsnyder as the cone-separating member of the modified Michit/Larguier mechanism, in order to positively separate two adjacent nested articles by progressively advancing a profiled member between their adjacent bases as the member rotates. Such modification would have been the use of a known nested-article separating mechanism to perform the same known separating function and would have yielded predictable results. See KSR; MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Regarding Claim 4, Michit/Larguier/Reifsnyder discloses:
The limitations of claim 2, which are met as set forth above.
Reifsnyder further discloses:
wherein the element of varying radial dimension is in the form of a claw — rotatable cam member 15 includes projecting lug 25 and wedge-shaped cam surface 26 configured to engage, retain, separate and release nested articles. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, such an article-engaging projecting member constitutes a claw (Reifsnyder, FIGS. 2, 3 and 6, cam member 15, lug 25 and cam surface 26).
Regarding Claim 5, Michit/Larguier/Reifsnyder discloses:
The limitations of claim 4, which are met as set forth above.
However, Michit and Larguier do not appear to disclose wherein the claw has a hook and the hook is configured to engage the base of a lower road cone of a pair of stacked road cones whilst the body of the claw engages the base of an upper road upper road cone of the pair of stacked road cones.
Reifsnyder further discloses:
wherein the claw has a hook and the hook is configured to engage the base of a lower road cone of a pair of stacked road cones whilst the body of the claw engages the base of an upper road upper road cone of the pair of stacked road cones – a rotatable cam member 15 mounted on a vertically extending shaft 16 at a spaced point around the periphery of the lowermost article of the stack, the cam member being formed with a protuberance or lug 25 and with a wedge shaped cam surface 26 whose forward or entering portion 27 is "above and adjacent the releasing portion of the lug 25" (Col. 3, Line 45; FIG. 6, cam member 15, lug 25, cam portion 26 and entering portion 27; FIG. 2 and FIG. 3, cam members 15 in the supporting position and in the separating position).
As to the engagement of the lower article, Reifsnyder states that "Each of these members may be formed with a protuberance or lug as at 25 for extending beneath the flange of the lowermost cup of the stack for normally supporting the stack at times intervening between dispensing operations," and that these lugs "should preferably extend radially inwardly of the stack of cups so as to subtsantially contact the cup walls to firmly hold the stack in position" (Col. 3, Line 5). As to the simultaneous engagement of the upper article by the body of the same member, Reifsnyder states that "just as the supporting lugs 25 are about to release the cup flange, cam surfaces as at 26 on each cam member will enter the space between the flanges of the two lowermost cups for separating the same and positively ejecting the lower cup," and that "when the flange of the lower cup is released from the supporting lugs 25, the flange of the next to the lowermost cup will rest upon these flat surfaces, which will thereafter support the remaining stack of cups in fixed position during the remainder of the dispensing operation" (Col. 3, Line 39).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of MPEP 2111, a "hook" is a projecting portion arranged to catch or engage beneath a part of an article so as to retain it. The lug 25 of Reifsnyder is a protuberance that projects radially inward and extends beneath the flanged base of the lower article of the pair so as to support it, while the wedge-shaped body 26 of the same cam member enters between the two bases and takes up the flanged base of the upper article of the pair. Reifsnyder therefore meets the recited configuration.
Additionally, Reifsnyder discloses a plurality of such cam members disposed at spaced points around the periphery of the stack, a stack of nested articles retained above them, and a bottom outlet 14 through which each separated article is allowed to drop out one by one (Reifsnyder, FIG. 1, stack 10, cam members 15 and bottom outlet 14), corresponding respectively to the opposed claws, the nested stack held in the upper road cone holding section, and the rear discharge of the modified machine of Michit, Larguier as set forth above.
Regarding Claim 6, Michit/Larguier/Reifsnyder discloses:
The limitations of claim 5, which are met as set forth above.
Michit further discloses:
wherein each claw is rotated by an actuator — motor 52 drives cam 51, which actuates lever 47 about axle 49 and thereby rotates the cone-control member carried thereby (Michit, FIG. 4, motor 52, cam 51, lever 47 and axle 49). In the combination, the Reifsnyder-profiled claw occupies the position of that actuated cone-control member.
Regarding Claim 7, Michit/Larguier/Reifsnyder discloses:
The limitations of claim 6, which are met as set forth above. Claim 7 is examined on the construction stated in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above.
Reifsnyder further discloses:
wherein the retention member rotates with the claw – The protuberance or lug 25 that supports the stack and the wedge shaped cam surface 26 that separates the lowermost article are both formed on a single rotatable cam member 15 secured to a single vertically extending shaft 16 by a set screw 19, so that the supporting portion and the separating portion necessarily rotate together about the axis of that shaft (Reifsnyder Col. 3, Line 3; FIG. 6, cam member 15, lug 25 and cam portion 26; FIG. 1, shaft 16 and set screw 19). Reifsnyder confirms that both portions move together, stating that the lugs "should preferably extend arcuately around the periphery of the cam member for a considerable distance so that the stack of cups will be securely supported even after the cam members have moved through a substantial angle from their normal positions when at rest" (Col. 3, Line 17). This limitation requires no modification beyond that set forth for claim 5.
Regarding Claim 12, Michit/Larguier discloses:
The limitations of claim 9, which are met as set forth above. Claim 12 is examined on the construction stated in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above. As set forth for claim 9, the road cone separator of the combination is the upper stop 45 of Michit.
Claim 12 adds "wherein the road cone separator includes one or more pairs of road cone engaging elements configured to separate between adjacent road cones to separate them" (construed, per the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) paragraph above, as requiring one or more pairs of members that move into the space between the bases of adjacent road cones so as to separate those road cones from each other).
Michit and Larguier do not appear to disclose wherein the road cone separator includes one or more pairs of road cone engaging elements configured to separate between adjacent road cones to separate them.
Michit comes closest in that its upper stop 45 is engaged between the bases of the bottom cone marker and the one above it. However, Michit discloses a single stop at that level. Michit states that stops 44 and 45 are "situated at two different levels" and that they "may for example be semi-circular and are situated on either side of the cylinder," (Col. 6, Line 15) which describes the lower stop and the upper stop as lying on opposite sides of the cylinder rather than as a cooperating pair of members entering the same interstice. Larguier's fingers 7 are a fork of two fingers, however Larguier's fingers are fixed and are spaced radially so as to pass the body of a cone rather than moving into the interstice as a pair.
Reasonably pertinent to the problem, Reifsnyder discloses:
wherein the road cone separator includes one or more pairs of road cone engaging elements configured to separate between adjacent road cones to separate them — a plurality of rotatable cam members 15 disposed at spaced locations around the periphery of the nested stack, Reifsnyder expressly teaching, for example, six or more such members. The members are simultaneously rotated by pinions 20 and a common ring gear, and the cam surface 26 of each member enters the same interstice between the two lowermost adjacent article flanges to separate them (Reifsnyder, FIGS. 1–3 and 6). Thus, the plurality necessarily includes one or more pairs of opposed/spaced engaging members acting together between the adjacent nested articles.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the single upper separating stop 45 of Michit with a plurality of circumferentially spaced separating members as taught by Reifsnyder, in order to apply the separating action at multiple spaced locations around the bases of the adjacent nested articles rather than at a single location, thereby providing positive and balanced separation of the lowermost article while the remaining stack is retained. Reifsnyder teaches using a plurality of spaced cam members operated together around the periphery of the nested stack to perform that separating and supporting function. Such modification would have been the substitution of a known plural-member nested-article separator for the single separating member of Michit to perform the same known function and obtain the predictable result of separating the adjacent nested articles at multiple locations. See KSR; MPEP 2143(I)(B).
As so modified, the road cone separator comprises one or more pairs of spaced road-cone-engaging members that move into the space between the bases of adjacent road cones to separate those road cones from each other.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Michit (US 4,597,706) in view of Larguier (US 5,525,021), further in view of Reifsnyder et al. (US 2,268,421), and further in view of Orthaus et al. (US 2004/0057824 A1), hereinafter “Orthaus.”
Regarding Claim 8, Michit/Larguier/Reifsnyder discloses:
The limitations of claim 7, which are met as set forth above. Claim 8 is examined on the construction stated in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 7 above.
Reifsnyder further discloses:
a second configuration in which each retention member supports any road cones in the upper road cone holding section — the protuberance or lug 25 of rotatable cam member 15 extends beneath the flange of the lowermost article of the nested stack and normally supports the stack between dispensing operations (Reifsnyder, FIGS. 2, 3 and 6, cam member 15 and lug 25; Col. 3). Reifsnyder states that each cam member may be formed with “a protuberance or lug as at 25 for extending beneath the flange of the lowermost cup of the stack for normally supporting the stack at times intervening between dispensing operations” (Col. 3, Line 3). As set forth regarding claim 7, lug 25 corresponds to the retention member.
Reifsnyder further discloses:
a third configuration in which each claw has rotated to a position between adjacent road cones in the upper road cone holding section to retain the upper road cone and release the lower road cone — upon rotation of cam member 15, wedge-shaped cam surface 26 enters the space between the flanges of the two lowermost nested articles to separate the lower article from the one immediately above it. Reifsnyder states that “just as the supporting lugs 25 are about to release the cup flange, cam surfaces as at 26 on each cam member will enter the space between the flanges of the two lowermost cups for separating the same and positively ejecting the lower cup,” and that after release of the lower article “the flange of the next to the lowermost cup will rest upon these flat surfaces, which will thereafter support the remaining stack of cups in fixed position during the remainder of the dispensing operation” (Reifsnyder, FIGS. 2, 3 and 6, cam member 15, lug 25, cam surface 26 and entering portion 27; Col. 3). As set forth regarding claims 5 and 7, cam surface 26 corresponds to the claw portion and lug 25 corresponds to the retention member, both being formed on the same rotatable cam member 15.
However, Michit, Larguier, and Reifsnyder do not appear to disclose:
a first configuration in which each claw and retention member do not obstruct the upper road cone holding section.
In the same field of endeavor, Orthaus discloses:
a first configuration in which each claw and retention member do not obstruct the upper road cone holding section — a pair of gate members 118 pivotally mounted adjacent the vertical traffic-cone stacking path and movable from substantially horizontal traffic-cone-supporting positions to substantially vertical open positions permitting a traffic cone carried upwardly by spear mechanism 42 to pass the gate members and enter the nested stack (Orthaus, FIGS. 15–17; gate members 118, spring assemblies 128 and spear mechanism 42; Pars. [0056–0060]). Orthaus expressly describes the gates pivoting upward when encountered by the elevated traffic cone so the cone can bypass the gates, after which the gates return to their horizontal positions and support the nested stack.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further configure the integrated claw/retention-member assembly supplied by Reifsnyder so that the assembly may bodily move to the open, non-obstructing position taught by Orthaus when a collected road cone is raised from below into the nested stack. Orthaus expressly teaches that the purpose of moving its cone-supporting members to the open position is to permit an elevated road cone to pass the members and become part of the nested stack, and that the members thereafter return to their supporting position.
Such modification would have been the application of a known technique to a similar road-cone stacking mechanism to yield the predictable result of allowing upward cone passage while preserving the known supporting and separating functions of the cone-control assembly. See KSR; MPEP 2143(I)(D). A person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Orthaus expressly performs the same vertical insertion operation required by the modified Michit/Larguier system.
As so modified, the claw and retention member are movable between: a first configuration in which both are displaced from the cone path to permit upward passage of a road cone, as taught by Orthaus; a second configuration in which the retention-member portion supports the stack, as taught by Reifsnyder; and a third configuration in which the claw portion rotates between adjacent nested cones to retain the upper cone and release the lower cone, as taught by Reifsnyder.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michit (US 4,597,706) in view of Larguier (US 5,525,021) and further in view of Chen et al. (CN 113389154 A), hereinafter “Chen.”
Regarding Claim 11, Michit/Larguier discloses:
The limitations of claim 9, which are met as set forth above.
However, Michit and Larguier do not appear to disclose wherein the road cone separator includes one or more wedge configured to be driven between adjacent road cones to separate them.
Michit does disclose an upper stop 45 that engages between the bases of adjacent cone markers, however that stop is described as semi-circular rather than wedge shaped, and Larguier's fingers 7 are described as sharpened at their free ends but are not described as wedges driven between the bases.
In the same field of endeavor, that is, mechanisms that separate adjacent nested road cones in a road cone storage device, Chen discloses:
wherein the road cone separator includes one or more wedge configured to be driven between adjacent road cones to separate them – a separating member 13 comprising a third wedge-shaped head 21 for separating two adjacent road cones, mounted at the end of a third push-pull electromagnet 23 carried on an electromagnet seat 22 (Chen, FIG. 2 and FIG. 3, separating member 13, third wedge-shaped head 21, electromagnet seat 22 and third push-pull electromagnet 23). As to the operation, Chen states that the electromagnet drives the wedge shaped head to extend, that the straight surface of the wedge shaped head bears against the base of one road cone and the inclined surface bears against the base of the adjacent road cone, and that as the extension distance increases the two road cones are gradually stripped apart.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the wedge shaped separating head of Chen for the semi-circular upper stop of Michit in the modified machine of Michit and Larguier, in order to apply a progressively increasing axial separating force at the interface between the two road cone bases rather than merely interposing a member of constant thickness, because Chen teaches that the wedge shaped head progressively strips the adjacent road cone from the one behind it as its extension distance increases. Such modification would have been the simple substitution of one known separating member for another to obtain predictable results, and at most a change in the form of a known element to obtain its known and expected mechanical action. See KSR; MPEP 2143(I)(B) and MPEP 2144.04(II).
As so modified, the road cone separator of the combination includes a wedge that is driven into the interstice between the bases of adjacent road cones in the stack held in the upper road cone holding section so as to force those road cones apart before the lower road cone is released to the chute.
Claims 18, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michit (US 4,597,706) in view of Larguier (US 5,525,021) and further in view of Lidster (US 2006/0291957 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Michit/Larguier discloses:
The limitations of claim 1, which are met as set forth above.
However, Michit and Larguier do not appear to disclose a rotating arm positioned to capture road cones exiting from the rear opening at the bottom of the chute to laterally shift each road cone.
Michit does disclose a flexible skirt 41 that keeps a released cone upright until it emerges through back opening 42, however the skirt does not capture the cone or move it laterally. Larguier does disclose an articulated arm 27 against which cones roll, however that arm guides the cone rather than capturing it and does not rotate to translate a captured cone.
Reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was concerned, that is, placing road cones released from a vehicle mounted dispenser at selected lateral positions across a roadway, Lidster discloses:
a system including a rotating arm positioned to capture road cones exiting from the rear opening at the bottom of the chute to laterally shift each road cone – a support arm 111 mounted centrally at the rear of the vehicle and having a pivot 112 at its distal end, and a swing arm 113 secured in that pivot "so that its distal end 114 can swing in a 180 degree arc behind the truck," the inboard end 115 of the swing arm having an angular extension 116 connected to a hydraulic cylinder 117 (Lidster, FIG. 13, support arm 111, pivot 112, swing arm 113, distal end 114, inboard end 115, angular extension 116 and hydraulic cylinder 117; Par. 0060). At the distal end of the swing arm is a receiver assembly 120 comprising a guide bar 121 and a pivoted c-clamp 122, which "forms part of the receiver with the guide bar for a traffic cone 10 leaving the rail assembly 20 as the truck moves forward" (Lidster, FIG. 13, receiver assembly 120, guide bar 121 and c-clamp 122; Par. 0061). As to the capture and the lateral shift, Lidster states that "As the cone enters the receiver a bumper 128 tips the cone so that its forward edge is lifted slightly off the roadway and becomes supported by a lip 129 at the bottom of the c-clamp as the distal end 130 of the c-clamp moves toward the guide bar. At this time cylinder 117 is actuated sliding the upright cone across the roadway to desired transverse position behind the vehicle," and that "the distal end of the swing arm can be programmed move to desired transverse positions behind the vehicle to place a traffic cone on the desired taper" (Par. [0071]).
Additionally, Lidster discloses a vehicle T carrying the cone handling apparatus, a vertical dispensing chute 31 that receives the bases of cones and drops them onto the roadway in timed relationship, and a cone storage system on the vehicle bed from which cones are supplied to the dispensing structure (Lidster, FIG. 6, cone magazine 30 and vertical dispensing chute 31; FIG. 8, cone stowage system 63; Par. 0043, Par. 0048), corresponding respectively to the vehicle 2, the cylindrical magazine 3 with its bottom escapement, and the carousel of magazines disclosed by Michit as set forth above. Lidster therefore operates in substantially the same structural environment as Michit, such that mounting the swing arm and receiver of Lidster at the rear of the chute of Michit would require no substantial reconfiguration of the vehicle, the magazine or the release structures already present in Michit.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified machine of Michit and Larguier with the swing arm and receiver assembly of Lidster positioned to receive road cones emerging from the rear opening, in order to place successive road cones at progressively increasing lateral offsets and thereby form a tapered line of cones closing off a traffic lane, because Lidster teaches that this arrangement lets the operator "place a traffic cone on the desired taper" (Par. [0071]) and, unlike the alternative taper system, does not require the driver to stop for each cone set on the taper. Such modification would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See KSR; MPEP 2143(I)(A). A person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Lidster's receiver is expressly arranged to take a cone that has just been set upright on the roadway by a vehicle mounted dispenser as the truck moves forward, which is the same condition in which a cone emerges from the rear opening of the modified chute of Michit.
As so modified, a road cone released from the bottom of the stack and emerging through the rear opening at the bottom of the chute is captured by the receiver on the swing arm, and rotation of that arm about its pivot slides the captured road cone laterally across the roadway to a selected transverse position before it is released.
Regarding Claim 24, Michit/Larguier discloses:
The limitations of claim 1, which are met as set forth above.
Claim 24 is examined on the construction stated in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above.
However, Michit and Larguier do not appear to disclose the system including a spinner for moving a road cone laterally with respect to a path of movement of the vehicle.
Reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was concerned, that is, placing road cones released from a vehicle mounted dispenser at selected lateral positions across a roadway, Lidster discloses:
including a spinner for moving a road cone laterally with respect to a path of movement of the vehicle – in the form of swing arm 113 pivotally secured in pivot 112 of support arm 111 and driven by hydraulic cylinder 117 (Lidster, FIG. 13, support arm 111, pivot 112, swing arm 113 and hydraulic cylinder 117; Par. 0060 to Par. 0061).
Interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as set forth above, the recited "spinner" covers the disclosed spinner 38, which is supported by shaft 36, rotated by motor 35, and carries hooks 39 and 40, and equivalents thereof. Applicant's spinner is rotated so that a captured road cone "is moved to the position of hook 40 and exits to the back," which "enables the cone to be translated by a fixed distance inwards" (Par. 0062). The swing arm 113 of Lidster is a member rotated about a fixed pivot by a powered actuator so as to translate a captured road cone laterally with respect to the direction of vehicle travel, and it does so by swinging its distal end through an arc behind the vehicle. That is substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result as the disclosed spinner 38. The swing arm 113 of Lidster is therefore an equivalent of the corresponding structure under MPEP 2183.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified machine of Michit and Larguier with the rotatable arm of Lidster for laterally moving a released road cone, for the reasons and with the reasonable expectation of success set forth for claim 18.
Regarding Claim 25, Michit/Larguier/Lidster discloses:
The limitations of claim 24, which are met as set forth above.
Lidster further discloses:
wherein the spinner includes a hook to capture a road cone and is rotatable to laterally translate a road cone captured by the hook. – The receiver assembly 120 at the distal end 114 of swing arm 113 includes a pivoted c-clamp 122 secured in a pivot 123 and articulated by a lever 124 and hydraulic cylinder 126 (Lidster, FIG. 13, receiver assembly 120, c-clamp 122, pivot 123, lever 124, cylinder 126 and lug 127). As to the capture, Lidster states that "a bumper 128 tips the cone so that its forward edge is lifted slightly off the roadway and becomes supported by a lip 129 at the bottom of the c-clamp as the distal end 130 of the c-clamp moves toward the guide bar" (Par. [0072]). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of MPEP 2111, a curved member having a lip at its lower end that is advanced beneath the lifted edge of a road cone base so as to catch and retain that road cone is a hook. Lidster further discloses that once the road cone is so captured, "cylinder 117 is actuated sliding the upright cone across the roadway to desired transverse position behind the vehicle," and that the road cone is released when "cylinder 126 opens the c-clamp" (Par. [0072]). This limitation requires no modification beyond that set forth for claim 24.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larguier (US 5,525,021) in view of Chen et al. (CN 113389154 A).
Regarding Claim 21, Larguier discloses:
The limitations of claim 20, which are met as set forth above. Claim 21 is examined on the construction stated in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above.
Larguier does not appear to disclose the separation mechanism in the form of a wedge configured to be driven between the bases of a pair of stacked road cones to separate the bases.
Larguier does disclose that its fingers 7 are sharpened at their free ends to promote the detachment of the bases from each other; however, Larguier does not describe the fingers as wedges nor describe a face of the fingers bearing against each of the two adjacent bases.
In the same field of endeavor, Chen discloses:
in the form of a wedge configured to be driven between the bases of a pair of stacked road cones to separate the bases – a third wedge-shaped head 21 for separating two adjacent road cones, the straight surface of which bears against the base of one road cone and the inclined surface of which bears against the base of the adjacent road cone, so that the two road cones are gradually stripped apart as the extension distance increases (Page 5, Par. 3; FIG. 2 and FIG. 3, separating member 13 and third wedge-shaped head 21).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the separating fingers of Larguier as the wedge-shaped head of Chen, in order to convert the advance of the separating member into a progressively increasing axial force acting on both of the adjacent road cone bases, because Chen teaches that the wedge shaped head progressively strips one road cone from the other as its extension increases. Such modification would have been the simple substitution of one known separating member for another to obtain predictable results, and at most a change in the form of a known element to obtain its known and expected mechanical action. See KSR; MPEP 2143(I)(B) and MPEP 2144.04(II).
Regarding Claim 22, Larguier/Chen discloses:
The limitations of claim 21, which are met as set forth above.
Chen further discloses:
wherein the wedge is driven by a linear actuator. – The third wedge-shaped head 21 is disposed at the end of a third push-pull electromagnet 23 mounted on an electromagnet seat 22 fixed at the right side of the storage box, and Chen states that the third push-pull electromagnet is started so as to drive the third wedge-shaped head to extend, and after the road cone has been taken the third push-pull electromagnet is started so as to drive the third wedge-shaped head to retract (Page 5, Par. 3; FIG. 2 and FIG. 3, third wedge-shaped head 21, electromagnet seat 22 and third push-pull electromagnet 23). A push-pull electromagnet that extends and retracts a head mounted at its end is a linear actuator.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to drive the wedge shaped separating member of the modified mechanism of Larguier and Chen by a linear actuator as taught by Chen, in order to advance and withdraw the separating member on demand rather than only at the angular position at which the relative rotation of the supply and the platform brings the member into the stack, so that the timing of each release is set by the actuator rather than by the rotational position of the supply. Chen teaches that its electromagnet extends the wedge-shaped head to separate the road cones and retracts it once the road cone has been taken. Such modification would have been the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR; MPEP 2143(I)(D). A person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both mechanisms advance a separating member into the interstice between the bases of two adjacent nested road cones along a substantially straight path, and substituting a powered linear drive for a member previously advanced by relative rotation involves no change in the manner in which the member acts on the road cone bases.
As so modified, the wedge of the road cone separation mechanism is extended into the space between the bases of a pair of stacked road cones, and withdrawn after release, by a linear actuator.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Orthaus et al. (US 2004/0057824 A1) in view of Reifsnyder et al. (US 2,268,421).
Regarding Claim 26, Orthaus discloses:
A road cone retention and release mechanism including a … retention member configured to move into a chute between: — a vertical road-cone stacking passage within framework 20 and a pair of gate members 118 pivotally mounted at opposite sides of that passage for selectively permitting cone passage and supporting a nested stack of road cones (Orthaus, FIGS. 15–17, framework 20 and gate members 118). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation stated above, the vertical passage through the framework corresponds to the claimed chute;
a first configuration in which each … retention member do[es] not obstruct the chute — gate members 118 are pivoted to substantially vertical open positions so that an elevated traffic cone carried by spear mechanism 42 may pass the gate members and enter the nested stack (Orthaus, FIG. 16; gate members 118);
a second configuration in which each retention member supports any road cones in the chute — gate members 118 are disposed in substantially horizontal positions in which they together form a support structure upon which a single traffic cone or nested stack of traffic cones is supported (Orthaus, FIGS. 15 and 17; gate members 118 and stopper assemblies 140).
However, Orthaus does not appear to disclose a claw associated with the retention member or: a third configuration in which each claw is rotated to a position between any adjacent road cones in the chute to retain the upper road cone and release the lower road cone.
Reasonably pertinent to the problem, Reifsnyder discloses:
a claw and retention member — rotatable cam member 15 having a supporting protuberance or lug 25 and wedge-shaped cam surface 26, with lug 25 corresponding to the retention-member portion and cam surface 26 corresponding to the claw portion (Reifsnyder, FIG. 6; cam member 15, lug 25 and cam surface 26); and
a third configuration in which each claw is rotated to a position between any adjacent road cones in the chute to retain the upper road cone and release the lower road cone — upon rotation of cam member 15, cam surface 26 enters the space between the flanges of the two lowermost nested articles, separates and releases the lower article, and supports the next-lowermost article and remaining stack (Reifsnyder, FIGS. 2, 3 and 6; cam surface 26 and lug 25; Col. 3).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the cone-supporting gate arrangement of Orthaus with the rotating separator profile taught by Reifsnyder, so that the same cone-control assembly that selectively clears the passage and supports the nested stack additionally positively separates adjacent nested cone bases during individual release. Reifsnyder teaches that the lug and wedge-shaped cam surface are portions of a single rotatable member and that rotation of the member transfers support from the lower article to the next article while positively separating and releasing the lower article. Orthaus teaches bodily moving the cone-supporting member to an open position when unobstructed upward cone passage is required.
It would further have been obvious to configure the Reifsnyder-profiled cone-control member to move with Orthaus's gate between the open and support positions because Orthaus expressly teaches that its gate is moved entirely out of the cone path to permit upward insertion and then returned to support the resulting nested stack. In the open position, both the supporting portion and the carried separating/claw portion would be displaced from the cone passage; in the support position, the retention portion would support the nested stack; and during release the cam portion would rotate into the space between adjacent bases in the manner taught by Reifsnyder.
Such modification would have been the combination of known prior-art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See KSR; MPEP 2143(I)(A). A person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Orthaus and Reifsnyder both employ peripheral members acting on the lower region of a vertically nested stack, and each member continues to perform its known function in the combination.
As so modified, the road cone retention and release mechanism includes a claw and retention member movable between a first configuration in which both do not obstruct the chute, a second configuration in which the retention member supports road cones in the chute, and a third configuration in which the claw rotates between adjacent road cones to retain the upper cone and release the lower cone.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. US 5036791 A discloses a stackable road delineator that includes an upright conical portion with a detachable weighted base. The end has a conical hollow interior so that when it is stacked on top of another similar delineator, the handle will freely fit within this hollow interior to thus provide stackable delineators. CN 105464017 A discloses an entry and exit bin door mechanism for a road cone deployment and recovery storage system, which includes a support frame, and a pressure bin device and a pressure bin mechanism matched with the support frame are provided. CN 106930205 A relates to a road cone retracting device, in particular to a road cone automatic placement and recovery device, which belongs to the technical field of traffic cone placement and recovery.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fathi Abdelsalam whose telephone number is (571) 270-0380. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10 AM to 6 PM ET.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/FATHI K. ABDELSALAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/KAITLIN S JOERGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights