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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rizkin et al (US 6,543,911).
Regarding claim 1, Rizkin discloses an active stud comprising: a single light emitting diode (LED) 310; a domed mirror 130 positioned above the LED in optical communication with the LED; a housing (generally 320,110,120) having a top side 110 that forms a domed outer shell; wherein the LED 310 and the domed mirror 130 are housed within the housing; and the domed mirror 130 reflects light from the LED out in an omnidirectional ring around the domed outer shell of the housing while blocking light from the LED 310 from being emitted directly through the top side of the housing (see at least Figures 1-3 and column 3, line 33 through column 4, line 33).
Regarding claim 2, Rizkin discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the domed outer shell of the housing has a tinted surface (see col. 3, lines 43-47 which teaches part of shell can be masked); and the domed mirror 130 reflects the light from the LED out in the omnidirectional ring around the tinted surface of the domed outer shell of the housing (see at least Fig. 3 and col. 3, lines 43-47).
Regarding claim 3, Rizkin discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the tinted surface of the domed outer shell of the housing has grips 360 (see at least Fig. 3 and col. 3, line 63).
Regarding claim 8, Rizkin discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses a PCB 340 housed within the housing; and wherein the LED 310 is positioned on the PCB (see at least Fig. 3 and col. 4, line 2).
Regarding claim 9, Rizkin discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses the active stud is installable in-ground for use in a pedestrian or cyclist pathway (see at least col. 1, lines 10-36).
Regarding claim 10, Rizkin discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses the active stud is installable in-ground for use in an airport environment (see at least col. 1, lines 10-36).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rizkin et al (US 6,543,911).
Regarding claim 4, Rizkin discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the domed mirror 130 be plastic. However plastic mirrors are well-known in the art (Official Notice), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the plastic mirror 130 in Rizkin of plastic in order to provide a durable and resilient mirror capable of withstanding impact on roadways for increased lifetime of the device.
Regarding claims 5-6, Rizkin discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not specifically teach a solar panel within the housing positioned above the domed mirror 130. However positioning solar panels above domed mirrors is well-known in the art (Official Notice), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a solar panel above the mirror 130 in Rizkin in order to provide a natural and renewable energy source for powering the LED 310 for increased efficiency and energy savings.
Regarding claim 7, Rizkin discloses the limitations of claim 1 and generally teaches that the printed circuit board 340 can include “a power source” to operate autonomously from outside circuitry and power (see col. 4, lines 6-7), but does not specifically teach a battery configured to store electricity from a solar panel. However the use of batteries to store electricity from solar panels is well-known in the art (Official Notice), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a battery within the housing in Rizkin to store electricity from a solar panel in order to achieve the stated objective of providing an autonomous power source for increased efficiency and energy savings.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Schwartz US 3,610,912 (low profile optical system)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN P GRAMLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9082. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5pm 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, Abdulmajeed Aziz can be reached at (571) 270-5046. 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.
/SEAN P GRAMLING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights