Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment and remarks received on 10/01/2025. Claims 1-14 have been presented for examination. Claims 1 and 14 have been amended. Claims 1-14 have been examined.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen (Pub. No.: 2019/0111833 A1) in view of Hu (Pub. No.: 2015/0100213 A1) and further in view of Sullivan (Pat. No.: 4,403,210).
1) In regard to claim 1, Nielsen discloses the claimed vehicle (figs. 2: 2-7) comprising:
a body defining a cabin therein (figs. 2-7 show the vehicle has a cabin);
a plurality of wheels rotatably coupled to the body (figs. 2-7 shows the vehicle has a plurality of wheels);
a brake pedal mounted in the cabin of the body and, the brake pedal being operatively coupled to the plurality of wheels to arrest rotation of the plurality of wheels with respect to the body (see figs. 2-7: its inherent the vehicle has a brake pedal);
a turn indicator mounted to a front end of the body, and the turn indicator being configured to present a turn signal when the turn indicator is activated (see figs. 2-7: its inherent the vehicle has a turn signal);
a brake deployment indicator mounted to the front end of the body (figs. 2-7: 24).
Nielsen does not explicitly disclose the brake deployment indicator being configured to present a brake deployment signal in response to the turn indicator being activated and the brake pedal being operated to arrest rotation of the plurality of wheels, the turn indicator being activated simultaneously while the brake pedal is operated, and the brake deployment indicator is configured to visually indicate deceleration of the body while the turn indicator is activated to viewers for which the front end is visible.
However, Hu discloses it is known for a vehicle indication system to allow the brake deployment indicator to be configured to present a brake deployment signal in response to the turn indicator being activated and the brake pedal being operated to arrest rotation of the plurality of wheels (fig. 8 and ¶0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the vehicle of Nielsen to provide a specific indication when the turn signal and brake signals are activated, as taught by Hu.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Nielsen as described above in order to promote safety when driving, as taught by Hu (¶0005).
Furthermore, Sullivan discloses it is known for a vehicle the turn indicator being activated simultaneously while the brake pedal is operated, and the brake deployment indicator is configured to visually indicate deceleration of the body while the turn indicator is activated to viewers for which the front end is visible (col. 6, lines 50-54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the vehicle of Nielsen to simultaneously output a turn signal indicating a turn and a brake signal indicating the vehicle is decelerating, as taught by Sullivan.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Nielsen as described above in order to provide a circuit for enhancing the signal provided by the brake lights of a motor vehicle so that it well be more eye catching to following drivers, as taught by Sullivan (col. 1, lines 23-27).
2) In regard to claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), Nielsen, Hu and Sullivan further disclose the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the turn indicator is one of a pair of turn indicators mounted to a front end of the body, each turn indicator of the pair of turn indicators being configured to present a turn signal when the turn indicator is activated (Nielsen figs. 2-7: 15), the brake deployment indicator being configured to present the brake deployment signal in response to one of the pair of turn indicators being activated and the brake pedal being operated to arrest rotation of the plurality of wheels (Hu ¶0028).
3) In regard to claim 3 (dependent on claim 2), Nielsen, Hu and Sullivan further disclose the vehicle of claim 2, wherein the pair of turn indicators includes a left turn indicator and a right turn indicator, the left turn indicator being positioned adjacent to a left side of the body, the right turn indicator being positioned adjacent to a right side of the body (Nielsen fig. 2: 15).
4) In regard to claim 4 (dependent on claim 3), Nielsen, Hu and Sullivan further disclose the vehicle of claim 3, wherein the brake deployment indicator is positioned between the pair of turn indicators (Nielsen fig. 2: 24).
5) In regard to claim 5 (dependent on claim 2), Nielsen, Hu and Sullivan further disclose the vehicle of claim 2, wherein the brake deployment indicator includes a pair of indicator members, each indicator member of the pair of indicator members being positioned adjacent to an associated one of the pair of turn indicators (Nielsen fig. 2: 24).
6) In regard to claim 6 (dependent on claim 1), Nielsen, Hu and Sullivan further disclose the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the turn indictor includes a turn light source (Nielsen fig. 2).
7) In regard to claim 7 (dependent on claim 1), Nielsen, Hu and Sullivan further disclose the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the brake deployment indicator includes a brake light source (Nielsen ¶0065).
8) In regard to claim 8 (dependent on claim 7), Nielsen, Hu and Sullivan further disclose the vehicle of claim 7, wherein the brake light source is configured to emit light in a color other than red (Nielsen ¶0065).
9) In regard to claim 9 (dependent on claim 7), Nielsen, Hu and Sullivan further disclose the vehicle of claim 7.
Nielsen and Hu do not explicitly disclose the brake light source strobes.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for an indication system to utilize a strobe as an indicator.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the brake light source of Nielsen to be a strobe.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Nielsen as described above in order to clearly get the attention of individuals in the area of the vehicle.
10) In regard to claim 10 (dependent on claim 1), Nielsen, Hu and Sullivan further disclose the vehicle of claim 1, further comprising a turn indicator actuator mounted in the cabin and operatively coupled to the turn indicator, the turn indicator being selectively activatable via the turn indicator actuator (its inherent the vehicle has a turn light actuator in the body of the cabin).
11) In regard to claim 11 (dependent on claim 10), Nielsen, Hu and Sullivan further disclose the vehicle of claim 10, further comprising a processor communicatively coupled to the brake pedal and the turn indicator actuator, the processor being operatively coupled to the turn indicator and the brake deployment indicator (Hu fig. 3: 3), the processor being configured to cause the brake deployment indicator to present the brake deployment signal in response to one of the pair of turn indicators being activated and the brake pedal being operated (Hu ¶0028).
12) In regard to claim 12 (dependent on claim 11), Nielsen, Hu and Sullivan further disclose the vehicle of claim 11, wherein the processor is configured to cause a selected one of the pair of turn indicators to activate in response to a corresponding actuation of the turn indicator actuator (Hu ¶0028).
13) In regard to claim 13 (dependent on claim 11), Nielsen, Hu and Sullivan further disclose the vehicle of claim 11, further comprising a power source being electrically coupled to the processor, the power source comprising a battery (Hu fig. 3: 4).
14) In regard to claim 14, claim 14 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 1 and the references applied.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the amended claims, based solely on the amendments to the claims, have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of the references including new prior art being used in the current new grounds of rejection for the newly added limitations to the claims. Furthermore, the well-known in the art statements in the above Office action is taken to be admitted prior art due to applicant failure to traverse the examiner’s official notice.
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 CURTIS J KING whose telephone number is (571)270-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00 - 2:00 EST.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/CURTIS J KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685