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 April 9, 2024. Claim 1 is pending for examination.
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds 150 words and requires to be concise. It is missing period at the end. The abstract recites “Has a Bluetooth” and “a electronic device” that appears to be a typographical error and grammatically incorrect. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “122” in Fig. 1 has been used to designate both parts of left and right shafts (120, 130). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites periods at end of many limitations and capital “A”s in the beginning of many limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Claim 1 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the functionality”, “the device”, “the license plate” without proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 1 recites “its”. It is unclear which elements are being referred.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abedi et al. (Abedi: US 2021/0366277A1) in view of Hedgewick et al. (Hedgewick 3933119) further in view of Butler (US 2018/0158384).
Regarding Claim 1, Abedi teaches a hazard warning panel (Fig. 3B, 200) configured to be deployed on a vehicle, the hazard warning panel comprising
A mobile smartphone application compatible with the functionality of the device (Par 6, A mobile software application executing on a mobile device may also be operable to communicate with the at least one alert beacon.).
A power adaptor terminal that provides an energy source to the foldable panel (par 17, power supply may be connected to an AC-energy source (i.e., 120-V AC outlet) that may be used to recharge the power supply 226.).
A wireless capability connection to the hazard warning panel (Par [0024] The alert beacon 202 may include a network interface device 220 that is configured to provide communication with external systems and devices. For example, the network interface device 220 may include a wired and/or wireless Ethernet interface as defined by Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 family of standards).
A Solar panel cell is wired and attached to its frame (Par 17, the power supply 226 may receive recharging energy from an external solar panel 228. ) and,
A Video Camera attached to one of its beams (Par 20, The alert beacon 202 may include a digital camera 214 operable to capture images or video that may then be processed by alert beacon 202 for detecting stationary or incoming objects ),
A plurality of lights provided on the set of beams and the first and second set of shafts (Fig. 3B, 218 and Par 22, light system).
Wherein the plurality of lights are operative to indicate presence of a hazard, and a safe direction of travel (Par 38, multiple visual alerts 218 (e.g., LED lighting system) may be included to provide visual alert to approaching traffic, service assistants, or bystanders ).
Abedi does not explicitly disclose
the panel is foldable or A set of beams; A first set of shafts and a second set of shafts detachably and pivotally coupled to the set of beams; or
Wherein the foldable hazard warning panel is configured to shift between a fully open state, a partially folded state, and a fully folded state.
However, Hedgewick teaches a foldable hazard warning panel configured to be deployed on a vehicle (Fig. 1 and abstract), the foldable hazard warning panel comprising
A set of beams (Fig. 1, leg members 1, 2, 3);
A first set of shafts and a second set of shafts detachably and pivotally coupled to the set of beams (Fig. 5-6 and col. 7 lines 20-30, support arms 56-57 pivotally connected to leg member 1 and Fig. 17, and Col. 9 lines 33-48, each of support arms is a set of shafts 157, 150 and col. 2 lines 25-30); and
Wherein the foldable hazard warning panel is configured to shift between a fully open state, a partially folded state, and a fully folded state (Fig. 1, erect position and Fig. 2, folded position. The state during transition between these two states are partially folded).
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 Hedgewick in order to provide high resistance to collapse of the device under wind pressure (Hedgewick: Col. 9 lines 1-2).
Abedi or Hedgewick does not explicitly disclose
A power adaptor terminal that provides an energy source to the panel, that connects to the license plate of the vehicle,
A USB rechargeable port,
A wireless Bluetooth capability connection to the foldable hazard warning panel, or
A wired integrated heater thermostat device attached to its frame.
However, the preceding limitations are known in the art of vehicle indicator devices.
Butler teaches a vehicle messaging system includes a message panel configured to join the vehicle and the message panel includes a secondary power source in addition to the primary power source provided by the vehicle (abstract and Par 3) and further teaches
A power adaptor terminal that provides an energy source to the panel, that connects to the license plate of the vehicle (Par 117 and par 93, a message panel 110 may be a digital license plate, or a digital sign board ).
A USB rechargeable port (Par 94, USB).
A wireless Bluetooth capability connection to the foldable hazard warning panel (Par 94, Bluetooth).
A wired integrated heater thermostat device attached to its frame (Par 113, the message plate is used in cold and freezing conditions, the heating portion may be configured to maintain a pre-determined temperature in proximity to the message plate to ensure appropriate working conditions for the message plate. ) .
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 Butler in order to ensure appropriate working conditions for the message plate (Butler: Par 113).
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
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, Curtis Kuntz can be reached on (571) 272-7499. 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 2687