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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3 are currently pending and is being examined herein.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claim(s) 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.
Response to Amendments / Remarks
Any reference to the prior office action refers to the non-final rejection dated 13 June 2025.
Examiner has provided claim interpretations for the currently presented claims below. Any claim interpretation included in the prior office action, but not this office action, has been withdrawn due to amendments.
All objections from the prior office action are withdrawn in view of the amendments / remarks.
All rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) from the prior office action are withdrawn in view of the amendments / remarks. New rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been issued that are necessitated by amendment (see below).
In response to the arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. There is no structure for “control device” in the specification, so the argument that interpretating “control device” to include a human brain or signal per se is unreasonably broad is not persuasive. The arguments related to the abstract idea rejection are not persuasive. Determining a plurality of priorities (plurality could be just two, at most four are mentioned in the claims) is a reasonable and common mental process and the newly amended limitation related to control and output a signal is an insignificant post-solutionary activity and does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g) and numerous court decisions pertaining to observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions, such as the findings from Electric Power Group where it was found that collecting information, analyzing it, and outputting certain results of the collection and analysis was not significantly more than the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Additionally, as can be shown by the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 (see below), the claimed elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
In response to the arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102, the arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Kameyama does not reasonably correspond to the amended limitations of independent Claim 1, Examiner does not find this persuasive, full mapping can be found below which shows that Kruse does disclose the limitations of amended independent Claim 1, as well as new dependent Claims 2-3. Applicant asserts that Kruse does not reasonably correspond to the amended limitations of independent Claim 1, Examiner does not find this persuasive, full mapping can be found below which shows that Kruse does disclose the limitations of amended independent Claim 1.
Claim Interpretation
In view of the specification, the term “next higher priority” (“use a definition of a scene illumination control operation with a next higher priority”) in Claim 3 would be the priority immediately less than the priority of a fourth illumination control operation (see paragraph [0007]: “make definition of factors of the illumination control operation with a higher priority unnecessary when…the same as definition of factors in an illumination control operation with a lower priority”). The plain meaning of the term “next higher priority” would be the opposite, to use factors from a priority higher than the added feature. The broadest reasonable interpretation is that either definition would read on this claim.
The term “control device” has no structural definition provided within the claims nor within the remainder of the disclosure. Therefore, the term is being treated under its broadest reasonable interpretation, which includes but is not limited to a transitory computer-readable memory, a computer / computing system, and a human brain. Also, see associated rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on this term’s use and its broadest reasonable interpretation.
The phrase “the same as” is interpreted to be exactly the same. For numbers, that would be exactly the same number of significant digits and all are the same digits in the same order.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a control unit”
“an illumination driver”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
No structure was found in the specification for “a control unit”
No structure was found in the specification for “an illumination driver”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
“the first plurality of illumination control operations” should be “the
“control and output a signal, to” should be “control and output a signal
“the one or more light emitting diodes” should be “the one or more light emitting [[diodes]] devices”.
Appropriate corrections are 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.
Claim 1 (and accordingly dependent Claims 2 and 3) are rejected because claim limitations “control unit” and “illumination driver” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, for each of these limitations, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, these claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 1 is missing a term, it currently states “…with a second priority than the first illumination control operation…”. For the purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting this as “…with a second priority lower or higher than the first illumination control operation…”. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected for being dependent on Claim 1. Appropriate corrections are required. When correcting, Applicant should ensure there is support in the original disclosure / avoid adding new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the terms “control device”, “control unit”, and “illumination driver” have no defined structure and under the broadest reasonable interpretation could be transitory computer-readable memory, making the claim potentially just a signal per se. A signal per se has been determined to not fall within the statutory categories (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claims 1-3 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, since there is no structural definition provided in the claims nor specification, a “control device” and “control unit” could potentially be a human brain and therefore the claims would be considered to claim a living thing. (See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) which indicates that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claims 1-3 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: As stated above, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Claims 1-3 do not meet a statutory category. For the purposes of compact examination, rationale for the claims being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more is provided assuming that Claims 1-3 could be amended to meet the requirements to be considered the statutory category of an apparatus.
Step 2A Prong 1: The abstract idea, specifically mental process, presented in Claim 1 is as follows:
determine priorities of a plurality of illumination control operations for decorating a place and to make a definition of a first plurality of factors of [[an]] a first illumination control operation of the first plurality of illumination control operations with a first priority unnecessary when the definition of the first plurality of factors of the first illumination control operation of the plurality of illumination control operations with the first priority is the same as a definition of a second plurality of factors [[in]]for [[an]]a second illumination control operation of the plurality of illumination control operations with a second priority than the first illumination control operation of the plurality of illumination control operations with the first priority, the first plurality of factors including a color, a luminance, and a time.
This is an abstract idea because it could be reasonably completed in the human mind. For example, when it’s cloudy, it’s a priority to turn on a light for better visibility. However, when in peak electrical pricing it’s a priority to turn off the same light to save energy. Claims 2-3 recited additional abstract ideas.
The additional elements are:
A control device for a vehicular illumination
a control unit
control and output a signal, to an illumination driver that is configured to drive one or more light emitting devices, for one of the plurality of illumination control operations, the one or more light emitting diodes being configured to emit light in response to the signal
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements a and b fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because under the broadest reasonable interpretation they could be a computer / computing equipment, and therefore could be merely applying the abstract idea to one or more generic computing components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additional element c fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because it is insignificant extra post-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: the additional elements individually and in combination fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Office takes Official Notice that they are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(d)), or insignificant post-solutionary activity in the form of mere data outputting (additional element c) (see numerous court decisions pertaining to observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions, such as the findings from Electric Power Group where it was found that collecting information, analyzing it, and outputting certain results of the collection and analysis was not significantly more than the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0235753 (hereinafter, Kameyama).
Regarding Claim 1, Kameyama discloses A control device for a vehicular illumination (see at least FIG. 1: vehicular user hospitality system 100), wherein the control device comprises:
a control unit (see at least FIG. 1: hospitality determination section 2) that is configured to:
determine priorities of a plurality of illumination control operations for decorating a place (see at least [0154]: “When the operation control application is executed, a usage priority of multiple hospitality operations supervised in each hospitality theme is determined in accordance with what level of the hospitality a user desires. In each theme (or scene), the hospitality operation is selected from the prepared hospitality operations in the descending order of the priority. Specifically, as shown in FIGS. 7A to 13B (mentioned later), function selection tables 371, 372 which define an operation priority (the greater the numeral is, the higher the priority is) of the multiple hospitality operation devices (hospitality functions) for each operation object determined in accordance with a disturbance type, are prepared for each hospitality theme, and stored in the ROM of the hospitality control section 3. Namely, the function selection tables 371, 372 specify the multiple hospitality operation devices usable in each scene, and show relationship between a disturbance on the user and the hospitality operation device preferentially used in accordance with the disturbance.”) and to make a definition of a first plurality of factors of a first illumination control operation of the first plurality of illumination control operations with a first priority unnecessary when the definition of the first plurality of factors of the first illumination control operation of the plurality of illumination control operations with the first priority is the same as a definition of a second plurality of factors for a second illumination control operation of the plurality of illumination control operations with a second priority lower or higher than the first illumination control operation of the plurality of illumination control operations with the first priority, the first plurality of factors including a color, a luminance, and a time (see at least [0216] and [0235]: “To further uplifting a little cheerful mental condition, a red light can be used (frequency adjustment). Without changing a color of the light, the brightness can be changed (amplitude adjustment). To calm a too much excited condition, a blue light can be used (frequency adjustment). Without changing a color of the light, the brightness can be decreased (amplitude adjustment).”; “ In case of "distraction," to awake the user, the lighting is flashed (for example, a stimulating wavelength of a primary color such as red and blue is effectively used).”); and
control and output a signal, to an illumination driver (see at least FIG. 1: hospitality control section 3) that is configured to drive one or more light emitting devices (see at least FIG 1: hospitality operation devices 504-512), for one of the plurality of illumination control operations, the one or more light emitting devices [[diodes]] being configured to emit light in response to the signal (see at least [0099]-[0101]: “As lighting devices (lamps), a head lamp 504 (its beam can be switched between high and low), a fog lamp 505, a hazard lamp 506, a tail lamp 507, a cornering lamp 508, a backup lamp 509, a stop lamp 510, an interior light 511, and an under-floor lamp 512, a door lock 513 are connected.”; “In response to a control instruction signal inputted from the hospitality determination section 2 to the hospitality control section 3, these light portions are selected, and the lighting of the light portions are controlled in various lighting patterns in accordance with the control signal”; “The lighting device can use an incandescent lamp, a fluorescent lamp, or a lighting device using a light emitting diode. Especially, light emitting diodes of the three primary colors, red (R), green (G), and blue (B) can be combined to obtain various lights easily.”).
Regarding Claim 2, Kameyama discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Kameyama discloses wherein the plurality of illumination control operations includes the first illumination control operation corresponding to an operation of controlling the vehicular illumination according to scenes including entry and exit and travel (see at least [0151], [0233], [0255], FIG. 3, and FIG. 25: “an approach scene SCN1, a getting-in scene SCN2, a preparation scene SCN3, a drive/stay scene SCN4, a getting-off scene SCN5, and a separation scene SCN6 are set in this order sequentially. In each scene, five hospitality genres (ST) are set. In each genre, one or more hospitality themes (OBJ) are set. The genre supervises multiple themes in each scene, and belongs to the concept of the "theme" in a broad sense.”), the second illumination control operation corresponding to an operation of allowing a user to adjust the luminance (see at least [0216]: “A required quantity of the lighting often differs in accordance with the physical condition of the user (in case of poor physical condition, a light quantity is decreased to restrict a stimulation by the lighting)”; “Without changing a color of the light, the brightness can be changed (amplitude adjustment)”), and a third illumination control operation corresponding to an operation of adjusting the luminance by determining day and night (see at least [0247] and [0421]: “The disturbance is "decrease of vehicle interior light quantity," which is detected by the illumination sensor 539 (FIG. 1). When the vehicle exterior light quantity detected by the sensor is under a predetermined threshold, the disturbance condition of "decrease of vehicle interior light quantity" can be determined to occur.”; “In the approach scene, light devices which are mounted to the vehicle and lights a space outside the vehicle (such as a head lamp, a tail lamp, and a hazard lamp: leak of an interior light through the windows can light the space outside the vehicle) can be defined as the hospitality operation devices. Lighting of the light devices for receiving the user can be defined as a hospitality operation. Accordingly, the light devices mounted to the vehicle can be used as illumination for receiving the user, contributing to the mood enhancement. In the night or a dark place, a position of a parked vehicle can be grasped easily.”).
Regarding Claim 3, the Kameyama discloses the limitations of Claim 2. Furthermore, Kameyama discloses wherein the control unit is further configured to use a definition of a scene illumination control operation with a next higher priority when the color and the time of the first plurality of factors are changed and a current luminance is kept without newly defining a luminance of a fourth illumination control operation (see at least [0315]: “Next, the preparation scene SCN3 and drive/stay scene SCN4 are explained. In the themes (OBJ131, OBJ141, and OBJ231, OBJ241) of the expectation/uplifting genre ST1 and relaxing/easing genre ST2, the operation of the vehicle interior light 511 and the play of the car audio system 515, executed from the approach scene SCN1 and getting-in scene SCN2, are continued mainly (the lighting color or lighting pattern and music selection (or volume) are changed). In the preparation scene SCN3, to calm the mood, the light having a lowered lighting quantity, and the music selection for the refreshing ST3 or mild and soothing SF of FIG. 18 can be set. When the user starts driving, the lighting quantity can be increased to awake the driver sharply, and the music selection for the uplifting and activating AG can be done, for example. As described above, when the mental and physical condition is estimated to be abnormal, the light driving pattern and music selection are prioritized in consideration of this condition, as well as in the approach scene.”; lighting color and pattern (i.e., time) can be changed without changing quantity (i.e., luminance)).
Claim 1 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 4,845,465 (Kruse et al., hereinafter, Kruse).
Regarding Claim 1, Kruse discloses A control device for a vehicular illumination (see at least FIG. 3: electrical lighting system 10), wherein the control device comprises:
a control unit (see at least FIG. 3: control logic 38) that is configured to:
determine priorities of a plurality of illumination control operations for decorating a place (see at least column 2 lines 10-20: “The embodiments are disclosed in a highway tractor lighting system to perform running (park/tail/marker) light, stop (brake) light, turn signal, marker interrupt, and hazard warning functions. A single lamp, or single lamp load, can be used to perform these signaling functions because they are prioritized according to a pre-assigned priority.”) and to make a definition of a first plurality of factors of a first illumination control operation of the first plurality of illumination control operations with a first priority unnecessary when the definition of the first plurality of factors of the first illumination control operation of the plurality of illumination control operations with the first priority is the same as a definition of a second plurality of factors for a second illumination control operation of the plurality of illumination control operations with a second priority lower or higher than the first illumination control operation of the plurality of illumination control operations with the first priority, the first plurality of factors including a color, a luminance, and a time (see at least column 4 lines 30-50, column 6 lines 10-25, column 7 lines 15-25, column 9 lines 20-30, and column 10 lines 10-30: “For a right turn signal, switch 28 is periodically operated at 50% duty cycle at a periodic frequency corresponding to the desired flashing rate. For example, a succession of one second intervals each consisting of a half second of 50% duty cycle operation followed by a half second of 0% duty cycle operation will produce half second bursts of full intensity illumination at a frequency of one cycle per second. Operation of switch 26 in analogous manner will produce a left hand turn signal of similar characteristic. For turn signal functions, control logic 30 receives appropriate command signals from the turn signal switch (not shown in FIG. 1) in accordance with operation thereof by the driver of the vehicle.”; “Hazard warning signaling is given by concurrently operating the two switches 26, 28 at 50% duty cycles as if each one alone were giving a corresponding turn signal with the flashes”; “Hazard warning signaling is given by subjecting both lamps to concurrently applied 50% duty cycle energization at periodic intervals, such as one-half second of such energization, followed by one-half second of no energization, etc. Left turn signaling is given by operating only switch 54 at 50% duty cycle at the desired flashing rate, such as during alternate half-second intervals; right turn signaling, by operating only switch 56 according to such a schedule.”; “The assigned order of priority, from highest to lowest, is: hazard warning; turn signal; brake (stop); marker interrupt; and tail/park/marker. The control logic comprises means for overriding any lower priority command by one of higher priority. For example, the brake signal will override the tail/park/marker signal; the hazard warning will override any other signal. If one of the turn signal commands is given concurrently with the stop lamp signal, the lamps on the side that is toward the direction of turning will flash on and off while those on the opposite side will continue to give a stop signal.”; “Hazard warning switch 70 has a pair of contacts ganged for operation in unison. One side of each is connected directly to the output of timer circuit 86. The other side of one connects to the same input of gate U4A as one of the turn signal terminals while the other side of the second connects to the same input of gate U4C as the other of the turn signal terminals.”; “If the hazard warning switch 70 only is actuated, the square wave from timer circuit 86 is in effect transmitted through to the outputs of both gates U4B, U4D, and the ensuing action of multiplex circuit 90 causes both lamps to flash in unison to give the hazard warning signal. Since both turn signal switch 72 and hazard warning switch 70 are fed from timer circuit 86, actuation of the hazard warning switch while the turn signal switch is already actuated will not interfere with the flashing action of the lamp on the side selected by the turn signal switch, and will serve merely to provide a cumulative command for that side while causing the lamp on the opposite side to begin flashing in unison with the already flashing side. Hence the hazard warning command has priority over the turn signal function. If the turn signal switch is cancelled while the hazard warning switch remains actuated, the lamps on both sides will continue giving the hazard warning signal.”; in summary, hazard is a higher priority than turn signal, but uses the turn signal duty cycle (i.e., luminance) and periodic frequency corresponding to the desired flashing rate (i.e., time), as this is an optically combined lamp performing stop and turn signal function for the rear of the vehicle it is inherent that the color is red and the same for all functions); and
control and output a signal, to an illumination driver (see at least FIG. 3: two switches 54, 56) that is configured to drive one or more light emitting devices, for one of the plurality of illumination control operations (see at least column 5 lines 45-68: “Multiplex control 44 comprises two controlled conduction switches 54, 56 whose respective main controlled conduction paths connect between the positive terminal of battery 42a and the respective loads 46, 48. A control logic 58 controls the conduction states of the two switches 54, 56, via connections to respective control terminals 54a, 56a, of the two switches. The control logic receives command inputs from various switches (not shown in FIG. 3) which are controlled by the driver of the vehicle. These are the same switches mentioned in connection with the description of FIG. 1. Like system 10 of FIG. 1, the control logic 58 of system 40 comprises means for causing the two switches to execute duty cycle operation up to maximum 50% duty cycle and with the respective duty cycles being mutually exclusive, i.e. at most only one switch 54, 56, conducting at any instant of time. While such mutual exclusivity of conduction has the definite advantage of minimizing the peak current draw, total mutually exclusivity of conduction is not essential in this embodiment because each load is served by its own wire.”), the one or more light emitting devices [[diodes]] being configured to emit light in response to the signal (see at least column 6 lines 50-55 and FIG. 1: “The two lamp loads 46, 48 are respectively disposed on the vehicle as the left and right tail/stop lights”).
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 ALEXANDRA ROBYN MORFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-6109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /JASON HOLLOWAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658