Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/498,459

ROAD VEHICLE PROVIDED WITH A MANUAL CONTROL FOR THE ACTIVATION OF THE HAZARD WARNING FLASHERS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Oct 31, 2023
Examiner
COLILLA, DANIEL JAMES
Art Unit
3612
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Ferrari S.p.A.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
805 granted / 1197 resolved
+15.3% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+22.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
1247
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
38.6%
-1.4% vs TC avg
§102
26.9%
-13.1% vs TC avg
§112
27.4%
-12.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1197 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 14-16, 19-21 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hashimoto (JP 2019-091575). With respect to claim 14, Hashimoto discloses manual control 10 for the activation of hazard warning flashers in a road vehicle (Hashimoto, abstract); the manual control comprises a support 14 having a seat 14a and a control body 13, which is accommodated in the seat 14a in a movable manner so as to be moved between a deactivated position, in which the hazard warning flashers are off (as shown in Fig. 5(a) of Hashimoto), and an active position, in which the hazard warning flashers are on (as shown in Fig. 5(c) of Hashimoto, abstract); wherein the control body 13 linearly translates between the deactivated position and the active position, in which the control body 13 is at least partially extracted from the seat 14a (as shown in Figs 5(a) and 5(c) of Hashimoto). With respect to claim 15, Hashimoto discloses that in the deactivated position, the control body 13 is completely inserted in the seat 14a (as shown in Fig. 5(a) of Hashimoto). With respect to claim 16, Hashimoto discloses that the control body 13 comprises a handle 11, which can be grabbed and can be pulled in order to extract the control body 13 from the seat 14a, thus moving the control body 13 from the deactivated position to the active position (as shown in Figs. 5(a) and 5(c) of Hashimoto). With respect to claim 19, Hashimoto disclose that the control body 13 has a cylindrical shape (“cylindrical shape such as an ellipse,” see middle of pg. 5 of the machine translation of Hashimoto). With respect to claim 20, Hashimoto teaches that the manual control 10 comprises a retaining system 16-18, which holds the control body 13 in the deactivated position with a predetermined force (see middle of pg. 3 of the machine translation of Hashimoto). With respect to claim 21, Hashimoto teaches that the manual control 10 comprises a limit stop (shoulders of the control body 13 located below gears 17 and 18 as shown in Fig. 2 of Hashimoto), which limits the maximum extraction of the control body 13 from the seat 14a when the control body is in the active position. With respect to claim 23, Hashimoto discloses that the manual control 10 is collapsible, thus allowing the control body 13 to completely get into the seat 14a (as shown in Fig. 5(a) of Hashimoto). With respect to claim 24, Hashimoto discloses manual control 10 for a road vehicle ; the manual control comprises a support 14 having a seat 14a and a control body 13, which is accommodated in the seat 14a in a movable manner so as to be moved between a deactivated position and an active position (as shown in Figs. 5(a) and 5(c) of Hashimoto); wherein the control body 13 linearly translates between the deactivated position and the active position, in which the control body 13 is at least partially extracted from the seat (as shown in Fig. 5(c) of Hashimoto). With respect to claim 25, Hashimoto discloses that the control body 13 comprises a handle 11, which can be grabbed and can be pulled in order to extract the control body 13 from the seat 14a, thus moving the control body 13 from the deactivated position (as shown in Fig. 5(a) of Hashimoto) to the active position (as shown in Fig. 5(c) of Hashimoto). 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. Claims 1-6 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamoto (JP 2022-097339) in view of Hashimoto (JP 2019-091575). With respect to claim 1, Iwamoto discloses the claimed a road vehicle except for the manual control that is configured to be activated by means of a vertical movement from the top to the bottom. Iwamoto discloses a road vehicle comprising: a passenger compartment delimited by a roof at the top (as shown in Fig. 1 of Iwamoto); at least one front seat arranged in the passenger compartment (as shown in Fig. 1 of Iwamoto); and a manual control 6 for the activation of hazard warning flashers that is arranged on the roof (Iwamoto, abstract). Hashimoto teaches a similar road vehicle including a manual control 10 for actuating hazard warning flashers (Hashimoto, abstract) wherein the manual control 10 is configured to be activated by means of a vertical movement from the top to the bottom (in the combination, the manual control 10 would be located on the roof thus orienting the switch so that it is activated by means of a vertical movement). It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Hashimoto with the road vehicle disclosed by Iwamoto for the advantage of providing a switch with fewer erroneous operations (see bottom of pg. 4 of the machine translation of Hashimoto). With respect to claim 2, the combination of Iwamoto and Hashimoto disclose that the passenger compartment has two front seats and the manual control 6 is arranged between the two front seats (as shown in Fig. 1 of Iwamoto). With respect to claim 3, Hashimoto teaches a support 14 having a seat 14a and a control body 13, which is accommodated in the seat 14a in a movable manner to be moved between a deactivated position, in which the hazard warning flashers are off, and an active position, in which the hazard warning flashers are on (see bottom of pg. 4 and top of pg. 5 of the machine translation of Hashimoto). With respect to claim 4, Hashimoto teaches that the control body 13 linearly translates between the deactivated position and the active position, in which the control body 13 is at least partially extracted from the seat 14a (as shown in Figs 5(a)-5(c) of Hashimoto). With respect to claim 5, Hashimoto teaches that in the deactivated position (Fig. 5(a) of Hashimoto), the control body 13 is completely inserted in the seat 14a. With respect to claim 6, Hashimoto teaches that the control body 13 comprises a handle 11, which can be grabbed and can be pulled to extract the control body 13 from the seat 14a, thus moving the control body 13 from the deactivated position to the active position (as shown in Figs 5(a)-5(c) of Hashimoto). With respect to claim 9, Hashimoto teaches that the control body 13 has a cylindrical shape (“cylindrical shape such as an ellipse,” see middle of pg. 5 of the machine translation of Hashimoto). With respect to claim 10, Hashimoto teaches that the manual control 10 comprises a retaining system 16-18, which holds the control body 13 in the deactivated position with a predetermined force (see middle of pg. 3 of the machine translation of Hashimoto). With respect to claim 11, Hashimoto teaches that the manual control 10 comprises a limit stop (shoulders of the control body 13 located below gears 17 and 18 as shown in Fig. 2 of Hashimoto), which limits the maximum extraction of the control body 13 from the seat 14a when the control body is in the active position. With respect to claim 12, the combination teaches that the support 14 of the manual control 10 (as taught by Hashimoto) is configured to be mounted horizontally (as can be determined from Figs. 1-2 of Hashimoto), so that, in the combination, the control body 13 linearly translates between the deactivated position and the active position by means of a vertical movement from the top to the bottom (the use of the switch taught by Hashimoto in the location disclose by Iwamoto would result in a vertical movement of the switch). With respect to claim 13, Hashimoto teaches that the manual control 10 is collapsible, thus allowing the control body 13 to completely get into the seat 14a (as shown in Fig. 5(a) of Hashimoto). Claims 17 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto (JP 2019-091575) as applied to claims 14 and 24 above, and further in view of Bienefeld (EP 1587117). With respect to claim 17, Hashimoto discloses the claimed manual control except for the light element which is arranged in the area of a side wall of the control body. However, Bienefeld teaches a similar manual control including a light element 24, which is arranged in the area of a side wall of a control body 20 and is on the outside of a seat (radio housing) only when the control body 20 is in the active position and is at least partially extracted from the seat (as shown in Fig. 2 of Bienefeld). It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Bienefeld with the manual control disclosed by Hashimoto for the advantage of the added functionality of a lighting device to the existing structure. With respect to claim 26, Hashimoto disclose the claimed manual control except for the a light element, which is arranged in the area of a side wall of the control body. However, Bienefeld teaches a similar manual control including a light element 24, which is arranged in the area of a side wall of a control body 20 and is on the outside of a seat (radio housing) only when the control body 20 is in the active position and is at least partially extracted from the seat (as shown in Fig. 2 of Bienefeld). It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Bienefeld with the manual control disclosed by Hashimoto for the advantage of the added functionality of a lighting device to the existing structure. Claims 22, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto (JP 2019-091575), as applied to claims 14 or 24 above, and further in view of Iwamoto (JP 2022-097339). With respect to claim 22, Hashimoto discloses claimed manual control except for the control body being translated by means of a vertical movement. Hashimoto discloses that the support 14 is configured to be mounted horizontally, so that the control body 13 linearly translates between the deactivated position and the active position. Iwamoto teaches a similar manual control 6 for activation of hazard warning flashers wherein the switch is located on the ceiling of the vehicle. In the combination, the switch (as disclosed by Hashimoto) located in the position taught by Iwamoto would result in a manual control configured to translate between a deactivated position and an active position by means of a vertical movement from the top to the bottom. It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Iwamoto with the manual control disclosed by Hashimoto for the advantage of adding an additional use of the hazard warning flasher as sending a thank you message to another driver (Iwamoto, abstract). With respect to claim 27, Hashimoto discloses claimed manual control except for the control body being translated by means of a vertical movement. Hashimoto discloses that the support 14 is configured to be mounted horizontally, so that the control body 13 linearly translates between the deactivated position and the active position. Iwamoto teaches a similar manual control 6 for activation of hazard warning flashers wherein the switch is located on the ceiling of the vehicle. In the combination, the switch (as disclosed by Hashimoto) located in the position taught by Iwamoto would result in a manual control configured to translate between a deactivated position and an active position by means of a vertical movement from the top to the bottom. It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Iwamoto with the manual control disclosed by Hashimoto for the advantage of adding an additional use of the hazard warning flasher as sending a thank you message to another driver (Iwamoto, abstract). With respect to claim 28, Hashimoto discloses the claimed manual control except for the support being configured to be mounted on a roof of the road vehicle. However, Iwamoto teaches a similar manual control 6 that is mounted on the roof of a road vehicle (as shown in Figs. 1-2 of Iwamoto). It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of to modify the manual control of Hashimoto with the teaching of Iwamoto for the advantage of adding an additional functionality to the manual control by allowing a user to create a visible thank you wave to another driver when actuating the manual control (Iwamoto, abstract). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7-8 and 18 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 7-8 have been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for the control body comprising a light element, which is arranged in the area of a side wall of the control body and is on the outside of the seat only when the control body is in the active position and is at least partially extracted from the seat. Claim 18 has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for the light element having an annular shape Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schawinsky et al. is cited to show another example of a manual control that is pulled out to activate hazard warning flashers. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J COLILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2157. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 4:00. 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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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. /Daniel J Colilla/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 31, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600476
LOCKING DEVICE AND CARGO DECK
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600287
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR RESTRAINING CARTS AND OTHER CARGO USING FORWARD AND REARWARD BRACKETS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600410
VEHICLE SUBFRAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600279
VEHICULAR DOOR TRIM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589807
VEHICLE BATTERY CASE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+22.7%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1197 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month