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 § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 discloses in lines 3-4 that a remote transmitter provides steering and throttle commands to activate and deactivate turn signal devices but then in lines 11-14 the claim discloses that it is the turn signal controller that provides the activation responsive to the received commands, making it unclear what is actually responsible for the activation and as such the scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim 6 discloses in lines 3-4 that a remote transmitter provides a steering command to activate and deactivate turn signal devices but then in lines 15-18 the claim discloses that it is the turn signal controller that provides the activation responsive to both an energization and steering command, making it unclear what exactly is responsible for the activation and as such the scope of the claim is unclear.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonov (7234990) and Ghaly (7905759). Leonov discloses a turn signal system (Figs. 1 & 2) for a remote-controlled vehicle having a remote transmitter (100) that provides steering commands (102) and throttle commands (104) capable of activating or deactivating first or second turn signal devices (paragraph 7 lines 50-63) and a turn signal controller (902) located in the remote-controlled vehicle (Fig. 6) that is configured with an input to receive the steering and throttle commands and a power output for the first or second turn signal devices (31, 33), wherein the turn signal devices are capable of being activated by the turn signal controller by turning an active turn signal indicator to on when no throttle command is received and as such the vehicle is stationary and a steering command greater than or equal to a stationary activation threshold in a first direction is received and is further capable of deactivating features by activating other features in response to different steering and throttle commands (column 7 line 29 – column 8 line 33). Leonov discloses the basic inventive concept with the exception of the system being radio-controlled and the controller including a data input port for receiving the commands. Ghaly discloses a turn signal system with a turn signal controller (Fig. 5, column 6 line 1 – column 7 line 60) for a radio controlled (R/C) vehicle having a data input port (60) for receiving steering and throttle commands and a power output (42) for activating first or second turn signal devices (28,30) wherein the data input port can be reversibly electrically coupled to an accessory port of an electronic speed controller (62). Since both Leonov and Ghaly disclose turn signal systems, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the commands be radio-controlled and to include a data port for receiving input commands and electrically connecting to a speed controller for the predictable results of configuring the system to use known elements for enacting control in a toy vehicle to produce desired effects that provide enhanced functionality and utility. The examiner further notes that recitations related to how the turn signal devices are activated is presented in the claim in a functional manner only and as such merely sets forth an intended use of the claimed invention. Functional recitations must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonov and Ghaly as applied above and further in view of Kennedy (GB2187650A). Leonov and Ghaly disclose the basic inventive concept with the exception of how the turn signal devices can be deactivated. Kennedy discloses a remote controller (Fig. 6A) for providing steering and throttle commands to a toy vehicle (Fig. 1) wherein turn signals can be activated or deactivated based on steering commands in first or second directions reaching respective thresholds. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from the teaching of Kennedy to have the turn signals of Leonov and Ghaly deactivated in response to steering commands reaching respective thresholds from first or second directions for the predictable result of providing more realistic operation that turns off the components after activation operations are changed. The examiner further notes that recitations related to how the turn signal devices are deactivated is presented in the claim in a functional manner only and as such merely sets forth an intended use of the claimed invention. Functional recitations must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonov and Ghaly as applied above for claim 1 and further in view of Katsuyama (2009/0160375). Leonov and Ghaly disclose the basic inventive concept, with the exception of including a motor state monitor for the throttle command. Katsuyama discloses a radio-controller having a motor state monitor (4) that can detect if an energization of a motor is zero (paragraph 15). Since both Leonov and Katsuyama disclose remote controllable systems, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a motor state monitor for determining throttle commands for the predictable result of configuring the system to use known elements for enacting control in a motorized device to produce desired effects that provide enhanced functionality and utility. The examiner further notes that recitations related to how the turn signal devices are activated is presented in the claim in a functional manner only and as such merely sets forth an intended use of the claimed invention. Functional recitations must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/1/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Leonov requires buttons for controlling the turn signal devices the examiner notes that while the use of buttons was one possible means of controlling the turn signal devices the reference further went on to disclose that steering and throttle commands could alternatively be used for causing activations and deactivations (paragraph 7 lines 50-63).
In response to applicant's argument against the combinations of references, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant's argument that the specific control conditions are not disclosed by the references, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA HYLINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2684. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. 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.
/A.M.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights