Aldridge Traffic Controllers Pty Ltd

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Aldridge Traffic Controllers Pty Ltd [2020] APO 4
Patent Application: 2017203721

Title:Traffic signal controller system and method

Patent Applicant: Aldridge Traffic Controllers Pty Ltd

Delegate:Xavier Gisz

Decision Date: 8 February 2021

Hearing Date: Written submissions filed on 17 November 2020

Catchwords: PATENTS - section 100A – re‑examination – inventive step – claimed invention lacks an inventive step – applicant given the opportunity to amend

Representation: Shelston IP
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE

Patent Application: 2017203721

Title:Traffic signal controller system and method

Patent Applicant: Aldridge Traffic Controllers Pty Ltd
Date of Decision: 8 February 2021

DECISION
Claims 1-3 lack an inventive step in light of D1.
The applicant is given an opportunity to amend the claims. The applicant has 3 months from the date of this decision to overcome the grounds of refusal.
REASONS FOR DECISION

This matter concerns grounds of re-examination and whether I should exercise the Commissioner’s power to refuse to grant the application under Section 100A of the Patents Act 1990.
Background
Australian patent application 2017203721 (the application) in the name of Aldridge Traffic Controllers Pty Ltd (the applicant) was filed on 2 June 2017. The application is a divisional application of 2015224498 which was a divisional application of 2011200285 which claims priority from provisional application 2010900291. The priority date of the application is 25 January 2010.
An examination request was made on 1 August 2017. A first examination report was issued on 31 January 2018. A response was received on 17 January 2019. The application was accepted on 18 January 2019.
An internal quality review found that the application should not have been accepted as the claim appeared to lack an inventive step. A re-examination report under s 97(1) was issued on 24 April 2019. The re‑examination report stated that the claims lacked an inventive step in light of AU 2008100741. The applicant filed response to the re-examination report (including proposed amendments) on 5 June 2019.
A report stating that the proposed amendments were not allowable was sent on 24 July 2019. The applicant proposed further amendments on 16 August 2019.
A second re-examination report was issued on 4 September 2019 maintaining that the claims (as proposed to be amended) lacked an inventive step. The applicant filed a response to the re‑examination report (including proposed amendments) on 25 September 2019.
A report stating that the proposed amendments were not allowable was sent on 15 October 2019. The applicant proposed further amendments on 14 November 2019.
A third re-examination report was issued on 2 December 2019 maintaining that the claims (as proposed to be amended) lacked an inventive step. The applicant filed a response to the re‑examination report on 3 February 2020.
A fourth re-examination report was issued on 3 March 2020 maintaining that the claims (as proposed to be amended) lacked an inventive step. The applicant filed a response to the re‑examination report on 4 May 2020.
A fifth re-examination report was issued on 30 June 2020 maintaining that the claims (as proposed to be amended) lacked an inventive step. The fifth report contained the following note:
“NOTE: My report below includes objections that are equivalent to objections raised in previous examination reports. As there has now been several adverse re-examination reports in relation to this subject matter, the application will be referred to a Hearing Officer to consider whether to grant the application under s49 or to refuse the application under s100A or to direct amendment under s107. If you wish to be heard on this matter, you have 1 month from the date of this report to request a hearing. Fee item 230 applies.”
The applicant requested a hearing on 30 July 2020. On 20 October 2020 a delegate of the Commissioner informed the applicant they had four weeks to provide submissions to the hearing. Submissions were filed on 17 November 2020. The submissions were accompanied by a declaration by Paul Milazzo, a Technical Project Manager at Aldridge Traffic Controllers Pty Ltd (the applicant).
The specification
The invention relates to an uninterrupted power supply (UPS) for a traffic light controller.
The claims as proposed to be amended on 14 November 2019 are as follows:
1. An emergency power supply system for a traffic signal controller system for controlling the operation of a set of traffic lights wherein the emergency power supply system can be retrofitted to the traffic signal controller system, the emergency power supply system including:
an uninterruptible power supply (UPS), interconnected to the traffic signal controller system to maintain the continued operation of the set of traffic lights during any short term interruption to the power supply of the traffic signal controller system wherein;
the UPS interacts with two batteries for providing back up power sufficient for supporting 4 or 8 signal groups;
the UPS is monitored by a logic module of said traffic signal controller system;
the traffic signal controller system is housed within a single cabinet and the UPS is configured to also be housed within the cabinet; and
said logic module of said traffic signal controller system is of a size and capacity to provide for the overall control of a maximum of said 8 signal groups, so as to accommodate said UPS and said batteries, also within said cabinet.
2. A system according to claim 1 wherein the UPS has a capacity to operate the traffic lights for approximately 4.5 hours in the absence of power.
3. A method of increasing the security of operation of a traffic signal controller and corresponding traffic lights, the method comprising the steps of:
providing an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) for the traffic signal controller to ensure the continued operation of the traffic signal controller during external power fluctuations wherein the traffic signal controller is housed within a single cabinet and the UPS is configured to also be housed within the same cabinet wherein;
the UPS interacts with two batteries for providing back up power sufficient for supporting 4 or 8 signal groups;
the UPS is monitored by a logic module of said traffic signal controller system;
reducing the size, and limiting the capacity of said logic module of said traffic signal controller system to provide for the overall control of a maximum of said 8 signal groups, so as to accommodate said UPS and said batteries, also within said cabinet; and
retrofitting said UPS to said signal controller
Applicable Law
The application was filed after 15 April 2013 and is governed by the Patents Act 1990 (the Act) and Patents Regulations 1991 as amended by the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012.
Thus, the standard of proof that applies in the present case is the balance of probabilities. I must accept the application if satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the application complies with the Act. If I am not so satisfied, then I can refuse the application.
Inventive step
Subsection 7(2) provides that an invention is taken to involve an inventive step when compared to the prior art base unless it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the relevant art in the light of the common general knowledge as it existed before the priority date, whether considered separately or together with the kinds of information mentioned in subsection 7(3). As with subsection 7(1), this information includes prior art information made publicly available in a single document or through doing a single act.
It is apparent from subsection 7(2) that the question of whether a claimed invention is obvious (non-inventive) is to be determined in the light of the common general knowledge as it existed before the priority date, and by reference to the perspective of the person skilled in the relevant art.
The inventive step objection
The inventive step objection in the re-examination reports makes reference to the following prior art documents:
D1: AU 2008100741 A4 (BRANAGAN CORPORATION PTY LTD) 11 September 2008
D2: WO 1999/065125 A1 (M.C.B. S.R.L.) 16 December 1999
D3: AS 2578.1 – 1983, Traffic Signal Controllers Part 1 – Physical and Electrical Compatibility; 10 Jan 1983
D4: "AS 2578-2009 Traffic signal controllers", published 3 December 2009
The examiner’s inventive step objection in the fifth re-examination report states:
“Thank you for your submissions filed on 4 May 2020 in response to my Re-Examination Report dated 3 March 2020.
I have considered your arguments however I have found them not persuasive. I consider that the invention as currently defined in Claims 1 to 3 does not involve an inventive step when compared to the disclosure of document D1 when read in light of common general knowledge in the art, for reasons further explained below.
In your submissions you have argued that prior art documents D1-D3 (and the common general knowledge in the art) teach away from the present invention. Further, you have pointed to prior art document “AS2578-2009 Traffic signal controllers” (=”the 2009 Standard”; D4) arguing that according to that Standard “[…] even where the controller is configured for say 8 signal groups, the common general knowledge teaches providing space to accommodate for 32”.
Firstly, I would like to point out that the current wording of Claims 1-3 does not specify the exact size nor origin of the cabinet. (Current Claims do not define whether cabinet is a "standard" cabinet normally used for 32 signal groups or whether it is (for instance) a custom-made cabinet of a sufficient size.)
Further, your statement “[…] even where the controller is configured for say 8 signal groups, the common general knowledge teaches providing space to accommodate for 32” can be interpreted as supporting my earlier argument that cabinet size does not appear to be a major limiting factor in designing traffic lights circuitry.
Moreover, as admitted in your recent submissions, traffic signal controllers with 8 or fewer signal groups are well known in the art. In your recent submissions you also seem to point out that large cabinets (designed for 32 signal groups) are routinely used in the art (and in fact large cabinets appeared to be a standard in Australia in 2009, according to the text quoted by you from the said 2009 Standard). Thus, it is still my understanding that when a small controller (with 8 or fewer signal groups) is installed in a standard cabinet designed for 32 groups, there must be plenty of empty volume left for both potential future expansions and for additional/ancillary elements such as batteries and an UPS.
Further, Clause 2.19.3 of the “2009 Standard; D4” states [my emphasis added]:
“2.19.3 Blank panel space
Clear vertical panel space shall be provided in the housing for mounting ancillary equipment such as transformers and contactors. The vertical panel space shall not be less than 300 mm by 180 mm, with a clear space of 180 mm in front of the panel.”
Prior art document D1 teaches using "an auxiliary power module" and a battery for ensuring operation of a traffic signal control module during potential power failures. D1 teaches retro-fitting the auxiliary power module to an existing traffic signal control module (see page 6, line 5 of D1). In an alternative embodiment D1 teaches (see paragraph bridging pages 10 and 11 in D1) that the said auxiliary power module can be integrated within a traffic signal control module. Even although D1 does not explicitly state using an "UPS", I consider it would be an obvious choice for a person skilled in the art. As exemplified in the prior art document D2, using an "UPS" is well known in the art (see Figure 5 of D2, as an example). Further, I consider that a Person Skilled in the Art would regard an Uninterrupted Power Supply and batteries to fall into the category of “ancillary equipment” and therefore he or she would mount the said elements into the main housing, as per above quoted Clause 2.19.3 of 2009 Standard (D4).
Moreover, Clause 3.1.3 of the same Standard further reads [my emphasis added]:
“3.1.3 Modular design
The controller electronics shall be designed on a modular basis with modules that plug into a removable rack. The rack with its complement of electronic modules is termed the ‘Logic Module’. The Logic Module shall make provision for the microprocessor system, interface circuits and associated power supplies.
The modular design of the equipment shall accommodate the varying requirements for the number of signal groups, vehicle detectors and pedestrian pushbuttons at each installation. The modular design shall also accommodate the provision of interface facilities to intelligent transport systems where required. Various sizes of Logic Module may be used to meet the requirements in this clause. (See Clause 1.5.)”
While Clause 3.1.3 (above) does not provide specific details of the said “power supplies”, I consider that a Person Skilled in the Art would contemplate as a matter of routine including both an Uninterrupted Power Supply and battery (or batteries) on as needed basis into the main cabinet.
Thus, I maintain that adding an UPS unit and two batteries to a standard signal controller (consisting of 8 or 4 signal groups) and placing all of the said items together, into a sufficiently large housing (such as a standard cabinet with space for ancillary equipment and power supplies as set out in the 2009 Standard) seems to be well within not-inventive abilities of a notional person skilled in the art and motivated by a simple need to ensure sufficient power supply in case of temporary power supply problems.
Further, addressing your statement that some small intersections requiring 8 or fewer signal groups may be perceived as being of lower priority/less critical and therefore not requiring an UPS, I am of the opinion that it would be a mere workshop improvement (and not involving any inventive ingenuity) to add an UPS with batteries as a precautionary measure for such small intersections (in order to ensure long term smooth and uninterrupted traffic).
In summary, I maintain that the teachings of prior art document D1 (when read in light of common general knowledge as explained above) would motivate a non-inventive person skilled in the art to choose a sufficiently large single cabinet to house the required number of signal groups (for instance 8 or 4 signal groups) and an UPS plus batteries, as currently claimed, in order to ensure increased reliability in case of any temporary failure of mains power supply. I also maintain that advantages of using two batteries (such as increased reliability and increased length of operation) would be readily obvious to the notional person skilled in the art without exercising any inventive step.”
Inventive step consideration
D1 - AU 2008100741
The primary document in the examiner’s objection is D1- AU 2008100741 which is considered below.
Does D1 disclose a UPS inside the cabinet?
D1 discloses an “auxiliary power module” which is described at page 8 lines 10 to 13:
“When the AC source 163 to the traffic signal control module 110 is interrupted, a switching means 124 switches the auxiliary power module 120 into operation such that the internal DC source 122 initially powers the traffic signal control module 110 via the AC output 132 of inverter 130.”
Although D1 does not use the term UPS, I consider that the auxiliary power module is functionally equivalent to a UPS. This is because the function of the auxiliary power module 120 is to switch to a DC battery converted to AC power if the main source of power is interrupted.
The applicant states in their submissions:
“As can be clearly seen in Figures 1 and 2 of D1 (presented below), the traffic signal control module 110 is separately housed from the auxiliary power module 120. Having regard for the common general knowledge in the art and the requirements of Australian Standards, it is not clear how D1 could somehow incorporate its auxiliary power module 120 within the cabinet of the traffic signal control module 120 [sic].
Whilst D1 speculates “other embodiments of [its] invention could include the auxiliary power module being integrated within a traffic signal control module, instead of retro-fitted as herein described” D1 offers no teaching or direction of how to overcome the technical difficulties in putting that solution into effect, let alone in a way analogous to the presently claimed invention.
Indeed, it is submitted that a person skilled in the art would not readily think to include the auxiliary power module into the traffic signal control module of D1 and despite D1’s speculation to the possibility, the person skilled in the art, without the benefit of the present disclosure, would conclude such a configuration is not possible given the strict requirements of traffic signal controller standards.”
D1 states at page 10 line 24 to page 11 line 2 (with my emphasis in bold):
“Furthermore, other embodiments of the present invention could include the auxiliary power module being integrated within a traffic signal control module, instead of retro-fitted as herein described.”
D1 provides a level of detail of the invention which is similar to the level of detail in the present application. Both D1 and the present application rely heavily on the skill and understanding of the person skilled in the art to put the inventions into practice.
I consider that a person skilled in the art would, using only routine steps, be capable of configuring the UPS and battery inside the cabinet of the invention disclosed in D1 and that document D1 teaches the skilled addressee to do so. I am satisfied that D1 provides an enabling disclosure of installing the UPS and battery inside the traffic control cabinet.
Is the UPS of D1 monitored by a logic module of said traffic signal controller system?
D1 discloses at page 8 lines 10 to 13:
“When the AC source 163 to the traffic signal control module 110 is interrupted, a switching means 124 switches the auxiliary power module 120 into operation such that the internal DC source 122 initially powers the traffic signal control module 110 via the AC output 132 of inverter 130.”
Although there may be a small interruption in the supply of power when the switching means 124 switches between the AC source and battery source, it is inherent that this interruption would be brief (e.g. by utilising a fast switch) and thus falls within the scope of a UPS.
It is notable that the claims state “the UPS is monitored by a logic module”. The claims define the UPS and the batteries separately, e.g. “said UPS and said batteries”, “UPS interacts with two batteries”. It is clear that the claims have been drafted such that the UPS is defined to be distinct from the batteries. This is notable since in typical usage I would expect the phrase UPS to include batteries as a component of the UPS. Regardless, nothing turns on this definition of these elements.
The claims define that it is only the UPS which is monitored by a logic module; the claims do not define that the logic module monitors the batteries. Every UPS has a monitoring system to determine when to switch to the backup power. This monitoring can be considered ‘logic module’ since the determination to switch to backup power is a binary logical decision. D1 discloses a UPS which is considered to be inherently monitored by a logic module of the traffic controller system.
Would it be obvious for the UPS of D1 to interact with two batteries?
The applicant states in their response of 25 September 2019:
“Furthermore, the specific implementation of two batteries is far more than a mere workshop improvement to increase battery capacity. By providing not merely an additional battery but an alternative battery in combination with the monitoring of the UPS, the present invention provides a redundancy which greatly improves the reliability of continued operation of a traffic signal controller system. However, it is important to note that such a feature cannot be dissected and dismissed in isolation. In the context of the present specification in order to achieve this interaction with two batteries a compromise in the size and capacity of the logic module is required.”

Neither the claims nor description define how the UPS nor the logic module physically interacts with the two batteries. Thus the applicant’s assertion that the “the specific implementation of two batteries is far more than a mere workshop improvement to increase battery capacity” is not defined in the claims and is further not supported by the specification.
It is well known in the art of electronic engineering that designing an electronic device to include an additional battery is a simple means to increase the amount of power stored. I consider that a person skilled in the art would, as a matter of routine, modify D1 such that two batteries were used instead of one battery.
Would it be obvious for the traffic signal controller of D1 to provide overall control of a maximum of 8 signal groups?
D1 is silent to the number of signal groups in the traffic light controller.
The applicant states in their submissions (with their emphasis in bold):
“…[T]he person skilled in the art, steeped in the folklore, perceptions and prejudices of the traffic signal control industry could not consider anything outside of the prescribed designs of the Standards as obvious without explicit teaching or the benefit of the present specification.
In the particular the features of the reducing the size and capacity of the logic module to only provide for the overall control of a maximum of 8 signal groups to accommodate the UPS and batteries, as in the presently claimed invention, is counterintuitive, unconventional and contrary to the prevailing teachings of the prior art and the common general knowledge. Accordingly, a non-inventive traffic engineer or team of engineers working within the constraints of the traffic control industry could not conceive such features.”
The applicant’s argument is that because traffic light controllers are standardised it follows that a person skilled in the art would not modify the number of traffic light signal groups to accommodate a UPS and batteries.
Mr Milazzo states at paragraph 3:
“It is my understanding that the invention claimed in the present application is directed to an emergency power supply system for a traffic signal controller system including an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) and two batteries mounted within a single cabinet where the logic module has been limited to a capacity of a maximum of 8 signal groups to accommodate the UPS and batteries. The invention relates to the integrated Controller with UPS (ICUPS) design of Aldridge Traffic Controllers Pty Ltd. The invention and this design involved achieving a set of requirements not readily or easily met with available equipment and still accepted by the road authorities. As such the invention cannot be obvious to those skilled in the art who are governed by the road authorities.”
Mr Milazzo states at paragraph 10:
“As the reliability and functional safety aspects are held in very high regard by all road authorities and traffic engineers, any innovation must go through a long and difficult type approval process before it is accepted by road authorities and once achieved is difficult to be modified readily. ITS equipment such as Traffic Signal Controllers and UPS systems for Traffic Signal Controllers typically have a required operational life of 15 – 25 years, thus showing how slow it can be to change and innovate without compromising the functional safety of the device. Thus, it is not an industry that will innovate readily and it is often difficult to work outside of a standard. Accordingly, it is a stretch to consider that D1 would motivate a non-inventive person skilled in the art towards a design not readily taught in the standards. Rather, it would take a significant innovation to arrive at a solution such as the present invention.”
Mr Milazzo states at paragraphs 13 and 14 (with my emphasis in bold):
“In practical implementations, the two cabinet configuration is the only option a non-inventive traffic engineer would consider, it would not be obvious to integrate the UPS and batteries into the same cabinet as the traffic signal controller, particularly not by limiting the logic module to do so.
In the Re-Examination Report of 30 June 2020, the Examiner has referred to a “custom-made cabinet of a sufficient size”, however, this is entirely removed from the state of the art of traffic signal controllers. There is no allowance for custom-made cabinets, rather the cabinet size in all 3 dimensions is a fixed size mandated by the road authorities. There is no acceptance of a custom made cabinet for any purpose to be different to that of the Traffic Signal Controller. This does not reflect how a traffic engineer would design a traffic signal controller for an intersection. The road authorities have drawings that mandate the size of the ‘footing’ to be constructed by civil contractors that accommodate a specific traffic signal controller cabinet, thus negating the ability to supply different cabinet sizes. The only obvious conclusion for a non-inventive person skilled in the art is that the cabinet would not be able to accommodate a controller for the required number of signal groups and a UPS and batteries. Rather, based on the common general knowledge, as indicated by standards, the accepted practice would be to deploy multiple cabinets. The ICUPS configuration of the present invention is only made possible by limiting the number of signal groups (to a maximum of 8), this limitation is implicitly tied to the size of the traffic signal controller cabinet. This is because, additional signal groups would require additional logic modules, field terminations and larger battery capacity to meet the requirement of 4 hours battery backup. Adding additional signal groups (physically impossible to do) would diminish the battery backup time and make the UPS function non-compliant. Accordingly, the ICUPS configuration would not be obvious over a multiple cabinet solution.”
The Australian Standard for traffic light controllers (AS 2578-2009) states at page 17:
“2.2 PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS
The housing shall be designed for mounting on a concrete footing or a flat surface. Figure 2.1 provides an outline arrangement for the controller housing.
The housing shall be designed to accommodate a Logic Module with the maximum dimensions and free space requirements specified in Clause 3.7.2 for the Size 32 Logic Module.
The external dimensions for the housing shall be within the limits specified in Table 2.1.
The housing shall be designed to accommodate all equipment and terminals required for controlling up to thirty-two signal groups.”
Mr Milazzo asserts that “all 3 dimensions is a fixed size mandated by the road authorities”, however there is no supporting evidence of this assertion. I note that The Australian Standards provide a range for each of the housing dimensions. I agree with the examiner that the dimensions of the housing of the traffic controller can be customised within the range provided in the Australian Standards.
The Australian Standard for traffic light controllers (AS 2578-2009) states at page 15 (with my emphasis in bold):
“1.5 Expansion Capability:
Controllers shall have the capability of being expanded to provide at least the appropriate capacity prescribed in Table 1.3.
The manufacturer shall provide options for the controller size, the number of facilities required and the type of detectors to be used with the controller to meet purchasers’ requirements.”
The Australian Standard for traffic light controllers (AS 2578-2009) states at pages 85 and 86:
“3.7 LOGIC MODULE
3.7.1 Overview
The Logic Module backplane shall not have any active components.
Four standard sizes for Logic Modules are defined in Table 3.6. Note that in Table 3.6 the number of loop detectors refers to the number of detector channels provided by integral detector modules. If external detectors are used rather than integral detectors, then it is permissible for modules providing interfacing for external detectors to be used in place of the integral loop detector modules.
From these excerpts of the Australian Standards, it is clear that 8 signal groups is a standard number of signal groups within a traffic controller.
The Australian Standard for traffic light controllers (AS 2578-2009) states at pages 46:
“2.19.3 Blank panel space
Clear vertical panel space shall be provided in the housing for mounting ancillary equipment such as transformers and contactors. The vertical panel space shall not be less than 300 mm by 180 mm, with a clear space of 180 mm in front of the panel.”
Mr Milazzo states at paragraph 19:
“With regards to the Examiners reference to Clause 2.19.3 “Blank Panel Space” of D4, a person skilled in the art of traffic signal controllers would not typically consider a UPS and batteries to fall within the category of “ancillary equipment.” The accepted practice is to reserve the available Blank Panel Space for items needed for the functions of the active operation of the intersection. The Blank Panel Space is thus typically reserved for modems and/or external vehicle detectors such as tram detectors as most modems and external detectors have a packaging format that does not allow them to be fixed to anything and as such must be accommodated on any available shelf space. This is particularly so because the cabinet size in all 3 dimensions is regulated and as such cannot be modified by the manufacturer of the equipment (traffic signal controller, modem, detectors etc). Thus, a UPS is typically not considered as ancillary equipment given the above. Since 2010, changes in the telecommunications standards for interfaces used by traffic signal controller have only confirmed the above is still the case, and all road authorities generally reserve blank panel space to locate modern modems and/or external detectors.”
Although the blank space in traffic signal controllers may generally be reserved for modems and external detectors, there is nothing in the Australian Standards that would preclude the blank space to be used for a UPS.
From the above excerpts of the Australian Standards it is reasonably clear that:
·A traffic signal controller with 8 signal groups is known.
·There are a prescribed range of dimensions for the housing of a traffic signal controller.
·The Australian Standards allow for some freedom in the design of the traffic signal controller (e.g. the allowance for ‘blank space’).
I consider that a person skilled in the art would be reasonably expected to make routine modifications to suit the situation. For example, the person skilled in the art would be reasonably expected to match the number of signal group controllers to the number of signal groups at the traffic intersection. Thus, in the case there were 8 signal groups at the traffic intersection the person skilled in the art would design for a matching number of signal group controllers in the cabinet. The person skilled in the art would not be dissuaded from modifying the number of signal groups (e.g. limiting the number of signal groups controllers to the number of signal groups at the intersection) simply because the traffic light controller included a UPS and batteries.
I consider that a person skilled in the art would, as a matter of routine, modify D1 such that there was a maximum of 8 signal groups.
Would it be obvious for the UPS of D1 to operate the traffic lights for approximately 4.5 hours?
The description states at paragraph 24:
“Additionally, there is provided a UPS system. The UPS system can be a standardised off-the-shelf extended temperature system and includes a UPS module 238 which interacts with two long-term storage batteries 239 and 240. The UPS 238 provides standard power conditioning and backup in the event of a power failure. The UPS is designed to provide at least 4.5 hours operation for a total load of 400VA. This is likely to be sufficient for supporting 4 or 8 Signal Groups. The UPS can consist of an integrated industrial temperature range 650VA UPS and GEL batteries. Where required, the UPS can be monitored by the logic module.”
Having sufficient power to run the traffic lights for 4.5 hours is a reasonable amount of time to allow the mains power to be restored. The description states that the UPS system and batteries would be simply chosen “off the shelf” which suggests that there is nothing surprising or unexpected about the power capacity of the batteries. There is nothing to suggest that batteries of this power capacity would be unable to fit within a cabinet defined in the Australian Standards.
A person skilled in the art would, as a matter of routine, use batteries of this capacity in the implementation of the invention described in D1.
Conclusion on inventive step
I have found that D1 discloses a) a UPS inside the cabinet, and b) that the UPS is (inherently) monitored by a logic module of said traffic signal controller system. I have also found that the features of c) two batteries, d) a maximum of 8 signal groups, and e) the UPS to operate the traffic lights for 4.5 hours, are routine variations to D1. Consequently, claims 1-3 lack an inventive step in light of D1.
Conclusion
Claims 1-3 lack an inventive step in light of D1.
I am unable to identify a feature (or combination of features) from the description that could be used as the basis for amendments to the claims which would overcome the inventive step objection. However, such a feature (or combination of features) may exist. Consequently, the applicant is given an opportunity to amend to overcome the finding of lack of inventive step. The applicant has 3 months from the date of this decision to overcome the grounds of refusal.
Xavier Gisz
Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents

[2020] APO 4

21 January 2020