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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015170591 A1 (MARUYAMA MASAO) in view of US 8061878 B1 (Kuntz; Tiffany), US 5806221 A (Vander Woude; Loren L.), and CN 111867885 A (SATO, TOSHIRO)
PNG
media_image1.png
564
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
692
486
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
540
520
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
758
570
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
712
574
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
222
534
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
204
512
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
480
538
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Per claims 1, 5-6, 15, and 19, Maruyama teaches a bi-directional vehicle [2] comprising: a fascia disposed at a first end of the bi-directional vehicle [3]; and a reflector unit coupled to the fascia [30], the reflector unit comprising: reflector elements comprising a first side and a second side [the 10a,10b side and the opposite of plate 30], the first side configured to reflect light of a first color [red, white] and linkages coupled to the reflector elements [20]; an actuator mechanically coupled to the linkages [70].
Maruyama also teaches that “When the brake pedal is depressed for about 3 seconds, current flows from the Japan mode electrical signal line 80a to the solenoid selector valve 79, one of the solenoids is activated, and the solenoid selector valve 79 is moved to the extended position (see (b) in FIG. 11)…When switching from the unexposed state (Japan mode) to the exposed state (China mode), an electric coupling (not shown) is connected to the Chinese mode terminal at the driver's seat, and the brake pedal is depressed for about 3 seconds.”
Maruyama lacks the second side configured to reflect light of a second color different than the first color; and a controller configured to: receive a signal indicating a change in travel orientation of the bi-directional vehicle; and in response to receiving the signal, cause the actuator to apply force to the linkages and cause the reflector elements to transition from the first side to the second side.
However, Kuntz teaches “a rear-lighting system 20 coupled to a rear bumper 22 of the vehicle 11. Such a rear-lighting system 20 emits a plurality of light rays 24 along the rear pathway 25 extending rearwardly away from the rear bumper 22 of the vehicle 11. Notably, the rear-lighting system 20 may be communicatively coupled to the steering and propulsion systems 50, 60, respectively. In this manner, the rear-lighting system 20 is responsive to the vehicle 11 operating parameters such that the light rays 24 are synchronously and uniformly oscillated in a direction 26 corresponding to a travel route and a travel speed of the vehicle 11, respectively. Advantageously, the light rays 24 may be automatically oscillated in a higher or lower direction 26 when the vehicle speed increases and decreases, for example. Also, the light rays 24 may be automatically oscillated in a greater or lesser angle 61 when the turning radius is larger or smaller, for example.
Kuntz also teaches “the rear-lighting system 20 may further include a mechanism 30 for automatically oscillating the reflector mirrors 23 along respective arcuate paths 79, 80 such that the light rays 24 synchronously and uniformly oscillate along an angle 61 offset from a centrally oriented vertical axis 62 of the vehicle 11. As noted above, such an angle 61 is automatically oscillated in accordance with the status of the steering and speed parameters of the vehicle 11.”
Accordingly, Kuntz teaches a reflective device to provide information to surrounding viewers regarding “a travel route and a travel speed of the vehicle respectively.” Thus, Kuntz teaches a controller configured to: receive a signal indicating a change in travel orientation of the bi-directional vehicle; and in response to receiving the signal, cause the actuator to apply force to the linkages and cause the reflector elements to transition.
Finally, Vander teaches a device that “provides a plurality of side-by-side sign segments 10, preferably each having three sides as is shown in the patent to Perez, U.S. Pat. No. 5,255,465, which is incorporated herein by reference. The segments 10 are rotatably mounted on a fixed sign frame 20 by any means for axial rotational mounting well known in the art. Each of the segments 10 provides a plurality of sign sides 30, but preferably three sides, arranged symmetrically and rotatable about a rotational axis 40 of each segment 10, as shown in FIG. 1, for presenting each one of the sign sides 30, in turn, in a preferred orientation, i.e., directed to a point of viewing such as to a sidewalk or street.”
Accordingly, Vander teaches the second side configured to reflect light of a second color different than the first color. Increase outward information would have been an expected benefit. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kuntz and Vander with Maruyama.
Maruyama lacks a first orientation to a second orientation that is opposite to the first orientation wherein the reflector elements to transition from the first side to the second side, to indicate a front end of the bi-directional vehicle to become a rear end of the bi-directional vehicle. However, Sato abstract teaches “The travel direction display device switches the front and back direction of the vehicle according to the travel direction of the vehicle, and displays the driver of other vehicles to the surrounding pedestrian. a lamp unit (3) is set at the front part and the rear part of the vehicle, the lamp unit (3) towards the advancing direction of the vehicle is used as the front lamp unit; the lamp unit (3) of the other one is used as the rear lamp unit. by using the vehicle ECU (4) to open the headlight (11) of the front lamp unit and closing the control of the headlight (11) of the rear lamp unit, thereby flexibly switching the display of the travel direction of the display vehicle 2 according to the travel direction, and displaying the surrounding.” Improved notification to the surrounding vehicles and pedestrians would have been an expected benefit. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Sato with Maruyama.
Per claims 2, 7, and 20, Maruyama et al. teaches the bi-directional vehicle of claim 1, wherein the linkages comprise pinions coupled to a rack [77b].
Per claims 3 and 8, Maruyama et al. teaches the bi-directional vehicle of claim 2, but lacks the rack associated with the linkages has a curved profile such that the reflector elements are disposed off-plane relative to each other. However, it was common knowledge to curve reflectors in order to maximize the direction of the reflected light. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 4, Maruyama et al. teaches the bi-directional vehicle of claim 1 but lacks the reflector unit is a first reflector unit, the bi-directional vehicle further comprising: a second reflector unit coupled to a lateral side of the bi-directional vehicle, the second reflector unit comprising: a second set of reflector elements having a first state and a second state, the first state configured to reflect light of a first color and the second state configured to reflect light of a third color different than the second color; and a second actuator coupled to the second set of reflector elements, wherein the controller or another controller is configured to, upon activation, cause the second set of reflector elements to transition from the first state to the second state. However, it would have been a matter of routine skill in the art to add a second reflector unit coupled to a lateral side of the bi-directional vehicle, the second reflector unit comprising: a second set of reflector elements having a first state and a second state, the first state configured to reflect light of a first color and the second state configured to reflect light of a third color different than the second color; and a second actuator coupled to the second set of reflector elements, wherein the controller or another controller is configured to, upon activation, cause the second set of reflector elements to transition from the first state to the second state. Adding the second reflector unit would increase the system complexity with the added advantage of increasing the information transmitted to the surrounding viewers. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 10, Murayama et al. teaches the reflector system of claim 5, wherein the actuator is mechanically coupled to the elements via one or more linkages, the one or more linkages comprising: a plurality of pivot arms configured to pivot 180 degrees; and a carrier coupled to the actuator and configured to, upon activation, transfer a force generated by the actuator onto the plurality of pivot arms [see transmission member 22 in figure 13].
Per claim 11, Murayama teaches the reflector system of claim 5. Murayama lacks, but Kuntz and Vanger teaches the elements disposed in a housing. Protection of the elements would have been an expected benefit. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kuntz and Vander with Maruyama.
Per claim 12, Murayama teaches the reflector system of claim 11, but lacks the reflector system further comprising: a marker light disposed in or on the housing proximate the elements. However, it was common knowledge to incorporate a marker light disposed in or on the housing proximate the elements in order to provide an additional light source to enhance the light reflected by the reflectors. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claims 13 and 16, Murayama et al. teaches the reflector system of claim 5, wherein at least one of the elements further comprise a third side, the third side being different than the first side and the second side [inherent to the combination, see Vander’s figure 1].
Per claim 14, Murayama et al. teaches the reflector system of claim 5, but lacks a surface area of the first side is between about 10 cm2 and about 40 cm2. However, it would have been an matter of design choice to form the reflectors to have a surface area of the first side is between about 10 cm2 and about 40 cm2. The maximizing the size the reflector relative to the desired placement on the vehicle and available area would have been an expected benefit. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 17, Murayama et al. teaches the reflector unit of claim 16, but lacks wherein the third state presents an active display configured to output an image or a message. However, it was common knowledge to include an active display system in a third state in order to display an exact message to the surrounding viewers. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 18, Murayama et al. teaches the reflector unit of claim 15, but lacks the actuator is configured to cause the reflector elements to transition from the first state to the second state, and from the second state to the first state based on a period of time. However, it would have been a matter of routine skill in the art configure the actuator/controller to cause the reflector elements to transition from the first state to the second state, and from the second state to the first state based on a period of time in order to improve the automation of the reflectors. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 and 10-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A DUDEK whose telephone number is (571)272-2290. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30 MT.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/JAMES A DUDEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871