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 .
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 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.
Claim Status
This action is in response to application filed on September 8, 2025. Claims 1-11 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the road traffic signal device is configured to deploy the traffic sign display panels in only one direction with respect to the movable platform”. However, independent claim 1 recites “in both directions”. Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and is omitting the limitation “in both directions” of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (KR102237142B1, see the attached machine translation) in view of Oliver et al. (Oliver: US 20210074187).
Regarding Claim 1, Shin teaches a road traffic signal vehicle (Fig. 1, vehicle 1), comprising:
a movable platform (Fig. 1 and 5, vehicle 1 has a platform); and a road traffic signal device installed on the movable platform and configured to deploy traffic sign display panels in a direction with respect to the movable platform (Fig. 5-6 and Par 40-43, elements 30, 34, 40, 50 form a road traffic signal device on the movable vehicle platform in one direction).
Shin does not explicitly disclose deploying traffic sign display panels in both directions.
However, Oliver teaches an arm to mount a traffic sign/signals (Par 14) and rotatable mounted in the post and extends over a roadway (Par 15) and further teaches the device configured to deploy traffic sign display panels in both directions (Fig. 6, 46 and Par [0016] The arm may also comprise a double ended boom. The double ended boom may be bifurcated. For example, the double ended boom may be such that the apparatus for supporting a sign or the like may be substantially ‘T’ or ‘Y’ shaped. Usually, a rotating cantilever post with a double ended boom would be mounted to a centre median of a roadway and/or the like such that a part of each end section of the cantilever boom extends over a part of the roadway and/or the like in a first position. And Par 51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Oliver in order to avoid unwanted rotation relative to the post (Oliver: Par 10).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Shin and Oliver teaches the road traffic signal vehicle as claimed in claim 1, wherein the road traffic signal device comprises:
a boom module (Shin: Fig. 1, 4 and 6; elements 30, 34) comprising a multi-stage boom (Shin: 34) configured to extend in both directions so as to span across a plurality of lanes of a road above the plurality of lanes (Shin: Fig. 6 and Par 33, the extension cradle 30 according to the present invention is mounted on the support vehicle 1 and is provided with a turning angle, height adjustment, and length adjustment by a plurality of boom bars 34 around the longitudinal axis 32. The vertical shaft 32 is installed so as to be rotatable while the lower end is fixed to the support vehicle 1 and is stretched and adjusted in the vertical direction, and any one of plurality of boom stands 34 is connected to the upper end of the vertical shaft 32 to adjust the angle. It is connected to the neighboring boom (34) in an insertion type, and the extension length is adjusted); and
the traffic sign display panels (Shin: 40) installed at the multi-stage boom and configured to be movable to over a corresponding lane of the road in response to the multi-stage boom being deployed to indicate whether the corresponding lane is available for driving (Shin: Fig. 6, 40 and Par 36-39, the passageable lane area 2 and the non-passable lane area 2 are accurately identified. Display so that the driver can easily identify whether or not to pass for each lane area (2). ).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Shin and Oliver teaches the road traffic signal vehicle as claimed in claim 2, wherein the boom module comprises:
a drive table installed on the movable platform to be rotatable in a horizontal direction Shin: Par 33, The vertical shaft 32 is installed so as to be rotatable while the lower end is fixed to the support vehicle 1 );
a rotating frame installed on the drive table (Shin: Par 8, An extension cradle 30 mounted on the support vehicle 1 so as to adjust the turning angle ); and
the multi-stage boom coupled to the rotating frame with an intervention of a connecting frame (Shin: Par 33, the plurality of boom stands 34 is connected to the upper end of the vertical shaft 32 ).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Shin and Oliver teaches the road traffic signal vehicle as claimed in claim 3, wherein the multi-stage boom comprises:
a first multi-stage boom coupled to the connecting frame and extensible in a first direction (Shin: Par 33, the plurality of boom stands 34 is connected to the upper end of the vertical shaft 32); and
a second multi-stage boom installed at one side of the first multi-stage boom and extensible in a second direction opposite to the first direction (Oliver: Fig. 6, 46 and Par [0016] The arm may also comprise a double ended boom. The double ended boom may be bifurcated. For example, the double ended boom may be such that the apparatus for supporting a sign or the like may be substantially ‘T’ or ‘Y’ shaped. Usually, a rotating cantilever post with a double ended boom would be mounted to a centre median of a roadway and/or the like such that a part of each end section of the cantilever boom extends over a part of the roadway and/or the like in a first position. And Par 51 and Shin: Par 33, the plurality of boom stands 34 is connected to the upper end of the vertical shaft 32).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Shin and Oliver teaches the road traffic signal vehicle as claimed in claim 3, wherein the traffic sign display panels are installed on one side or both sides of the multi-stage boom (Shin: Fig. 6, 40 are on side of boom 34).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Shin and Oliver teaches the road traffic signal vehicle as claimed in claim 1, further comprising at least one of:
a plurality of outriggers installed at the movable platform to be expandable and retractable so as to support the road traffic signal vehicle,
a work light installed at an upper portion of the movable platform, or
a shock absorbing structure installed at a side of the movable platform opposite to a side at which a vehicle body is coupled (Shin: Fig. 10, 130 and Par 55).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Shin and Oliver teaches the road traffic signal vehicle as claimed in claim 1, wherein the road traffic signal device is configured to deploy the traffic sign display panels in only one direction with respect to the movable platform (Shin: Fig. 6, the road traffic signal device is deployed only to the left side ).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Shin and Oliver teaches the road traffic signal vehicle as claimed in claim 1, wherein the movable platform comprises a stage of the road traffic signal vehicle (Shin: Fig. 1 and 5, vehicle 1 has a bed/stage behind the driver cabin) or a trailer.
Regarding Claim 11, Shin teaches a road traffic signal device installed on a movable platform (Fig. 1 and 5, vehicle 1) and configured to deploy traffic sign display panels in a direction with respect to the movable platform (Fig. 5-6 and Par 40-43, elements 30, 34, 40, 50 form a road traffic signal device on the movable vehicle platform in one direction).
Shin does not explicitly disclose deploying traffic sign display panels in both directions.
However, Oliver teaches an arm to mount a traffic sign/signals (Par 14) and rotatable mounted in the post and extends over a roadway (Par 15) and further teaches the device configured to deploy traffic sign display panels in both directions (Fig. 6, 46 and Par [0016] The arm may also comprise a double ended boom. The double ended boom may be bifurcated. For example, the double ended boom may be such that the apparatus for supporting a sign or the like may be substantially ‘T’ or ‘Y’ shaped. Usually, a rotating cantilever post with a double ended boom would be mounted to a centre median of a roadway and/or the like such that a part of each end section of the cantilever boom extends over a part of the roadway and/or the like in a first position. And Par 51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Oliver in order to avoid unwanted rotation relative to the post (Oliver: Par 10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prior arts cited for the record but not used in Office Action, are listed in attached PTO-892.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nay Tun whose telephone number is (571)270-7939. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs from 9:00-5:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's Supervisor, Steven Lim can be reached on (571) 270-1210. 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).
/Nay Tun/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights