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 .
Status of Claims
In response filed August 29, 2025, claims 1 and 15 are amended. No claims are canceled. Claims 1-18 are pending. Claim objections of claims 1 and 15 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues there is improper combination and lack of motivation to combine the references of Fugit and IMSA, and that the rationale for combining these references appears to be based on hindsight. It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The applicant specifically argues that “[t]here is no disclosure or suggestion in Fugit of moving the control logic or management service off-site or to a cloud-based environment”, and “neither reference nor the state of the art at the time suggests or motivates the claimed architecture, where a remote/cloud-based management service directly controls in-vehicle position indicators.”
However, the claims are silent to the requirement of “moving the control logic or management service off-site or to a cloud-based environment,” or “a remote/cloud-based management service directly controls in-vehicle position indicators.” In fact the word “cloud” or “cloud-based” is not found in any of the currently presented claims. Claim 1 recites “initializing wireless communication links between multiple position indicators assemblies of multiple vehicles and a management service…”, “wherein the management service is executed using one or more processors of one or more computers, and wherein at least one of the one or more processors is outside the venue;” Therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation, the multiple position indicators assemblies are communicating wirelessly with the management service, and the management service is executed using one or more processors of one or more computers, and at least one of the one or more processors is outside the venue, and some number of the one or more processors could be inside the venue. Claim 1 does not limit where the management service is located, or where the one or more computers is located, only that at least one of the processors is outside the venue, and the claim does not specify or limit the functions of “the at least one of the processors that is outside the venue”. The claim does not specify or limit that “the at least one of the processors that is outside the venue” is the processor that is controlling the position indicator assemblies, or that “the at least one of the processors that is outside the venue” is in the cloud. It is clear that Fugit teaches “the multiple position indicators assemblies are communicating wirelessly with the management service, and the management service is executed using one or more processors of one or more computers”, Fugit explicitly states that “[t]he receiver and transmission device may operate using laser light, radio frequencies, infrared or some other suitable electromagnetic frequency such as microwaves.” [0030]
The applicant argues that IMSA does not teach or suggest remote control of in-vehicle displays. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Fugit reference was used to teach remote control of in-vehicle displays.
The applicant argues that Fugit teaches away from remote/cloud-based control. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Fugit expressly teaches that the multiple position indicators assemblies are remotely updated [0030]. The applicant argues “[t]here is no disclosure or suggestion in Fugit or moving the control logic or management service off-site or to a cloud-based environment.” However, the claims are silent to “moving the control logic or management service off-site or to a cloud-based environment.” See response above in Section 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The applicant argues that the claimed technical architecture is not taught or suggested. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Please refer to the response in Section 1.
The applicant argues that multi-venue, multi-vehicle, single remote management service are not disclosed or suggested. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant states that [c]laim 2 specifically recites a management service that simultaneously handles multiple venues and multiple vehicles in different venues, with each venue’s timing system providing data to the same remote management service.” However, claim 2 as presented recites “initializing additional wireless communication links between multiple other position indicator assemblies of multiple other individual vehicles and the management service, wherein the multiple other vehicles are operating in a second different venue, wherein a second timing system of the second vehicle is operable to determine relative positions of the other multiple vehicles, wherein the management service is responsive to timing input from the second timing system via the computer network, wherein the management service is remote from the other multiple position indicator.” Claim 2 is silent regarding “a management service that simultaneously handles multiple venues and multiple vehicles in different venues”. Fugit discloses an embodiment where “the transmission units and visual indicating units are portable such that a single set of units may be transported and used at multiple race locations.” [0032] Therefore Fugit teaches multiple other vehicles operating in a second different venue, with position determination by a second timing system of the second venue. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The applicant argues distributed processing architecture is not disclosed or suggested. The applicant argues that regarding claim 15, there is no teaching or suggestion in the cited references of the claimed hybrid architecture, where processing may be distributed between processors inside and outside the venue. The examiner respectfully disagrees. By applicant’s own admission “Fugit is limited to local control”, therefore Fugit teaches processors inside the venue. Fugit also expressly discloses that “ a variety of systems also currently exist for transmitting information to racecars during the race, and the present invention can be implemented utilizing some of this existing equipment” [0042] Here Fugit provides explicit teaching and provides reasons to combine the vehicle positioning system with a variety of other systems to receive timing and position data, such as the remote timing and position data system disclosed by IMSA.
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 1-5, 7-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2004/0095228 to Fugit in view of “IMSA 2020-V2 PROTOCOL ON CLOUD & ON SITE” (https://www.imsa.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2020/06/17/2020_Alkamel_V2_Protocol.pdf published 2020) herein after referred to as “IMSA”.
Referring to Claim 1:
Fugit discloses
A method, comprising:
initializing wireless communication links between multiple position indicator assemblies of multiple vehicles and a management service, wherein the multiple vehicles are in a venue, wherein a timing system of the venue is operable to determine timing data associated with the multiple vehicles, wherein the management service receives the timing data from the timing system via a computer network, wherein the management service is remote from the multiple position indicator assemblies of the multiple vehicles, wherein the management service is executed using one or more processors of one or more computers; [0030], [0031]
accepting the timing data from the timing system using the management device; [0030]
using the management service to process the timing data to determine vehicle positions relative to other vehicles; [0030]
comparing the vehicle positions against position indicator criteria using the management service to determine an updated position for one or more vehicles of the multiple vehicles operating in the venue; [0030], [0031]
sending the updated position to at least one of the multiple vehicles using the management service and the wireless communication links between the management service and the one or more vehicles; [0030], [0031] and
adjusting the position indicator assembly for the one or more vehicle to display the updated position. [0030]
Fugit discloses that the invention “can be implemented with position information determined by the existing electronic timing system of the racetrack” [0041] and “utilizing some of this existing equipment” to “transmitting information to racecars during the race” [0042]. Fugit however does not explicitly state that at least one of the one or more processors of the management service is outside the venue.
IMSA discloses “the V2 Protocol” which is software that “is entirely accessible via a dedicated cloud” which includes “live data stream, incorporating all timing information.” (Top page 2)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Fugit’s racing vehicle position indication system with the cloud software disclosed by IMSA. Fugit would be motivated to perform such combination to minimize transportation of team members and enabling them to operate remotely with equal efficiency, as disclosed by IMSA.
Referring to Claim 2:
Fugit discloses
the method of claim 1, comprising:
initializing additional wireless communication links between multiple other position indicator assemblies of multiple other individual vehicles and management service, wherein the multiple other vehicles are operation in a second different venue, wherein a second timing system of the second venue is operable to determine relative positions of the other multiple vehicles, wherein the management service is responsive to timing input from the second timing system via the computer network, wherein the management service is remote from the other multiple position indicator. [0032]
Referring to Claim 3:
Fugit discloses
the method of claim 1, wherein the position indicator includes one or more LEDs operable to display an indicator corresponding to the position received from the management service. [0026]
Referring to Claim 4:
Fugit discloses
the method of claim 1, wherein the multiple position indicator assemblies include:
a position indicator that is arranged and configured to display the position of the vehicle relative to other vehicles; [0030] and
a control circuit, wherein the position indicator is responsive to control input from the control circuit defining the position displayed by the position indicator, and wherein the control circuit is responsive to the management service via at least one of the wireless communication links. [0030]
Referring to Claim 5:
Fugit discloses
the method of claim 1, comprising:
accepting a caution indication from the timing service using the management service;
sending a caution message from the management service to the multiple position indicator assemblies, wherein control logic of the multiple position indicator assemblies is operable to receive the caution message and to activate a caution mode of the control logic; and
triggering a caution indicator of the position indicator assembly when the caution mode is activated. [0043]
Referring to Claim 7 and 8:
Fugit does not expressly disclose accepting a clear caution indication from the timing service using the management service; sending a clear caution message from the management service to the multiple position indicator assemblies, wherein the control logic is operable to deactivate the caution mode when the clear caution message is received. And wherein the position indicator is displayed instead of the caution indicator when the caution mode is deactivated. However, Fugit discloses the indicating units can display light patterns that calls attention to mechanical difficulty [0043]. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to realize that in Fugit, when there is no longer a mechanical difficulty then the indicating units would be cleared and would not display light patterns for mechanical difficulties.
Referring to Claim 9:
Fugit discloses
the method of claim 1, wherein the updated position is sent to all of the multiple vehicles, and wherein control logic of the multiple position indicator assemblies is configured to match the update sent to the at least one of the multiple vehicle position update is meant for. [0031]
Referring to Claim 10:
Fugit discloses
the method of claim 4, wherein the position indicator includes one or more multicolored LEDs. [0026]
Referring to Claim 11:
Fugit discloses
the method of claim 10, wherein the multicolored LEDs are operable to emit red, green, or blue light, or any combination thereof. [0026]
Referring to Claim 12:
Fugit discloses
the method of claim 4, wherein the position indicator is operable to emit light of different colors corresponding to the position. [0026]
Referring to Claim 13:
Fugit discloses
the method of claim 4, wherein the position indicator defines a recognizable pattern corresponding to the position received from the management service. [0027]
Referring to Claim 14:
Fugit discloses
the method of claim 4, wherein the position indicator defines a numerical pattern corresponding to a numerical position received from the management services. [0027]
Referring to Claim 15:
Fugit discloses
the method of claim 1, wherein the management service is executed as a running process executed by the one or more processors of the one or more computers, and wherein at least one of the one or more processors is located inside the venue. [0031]
Referring to Claim 16:
Fugit discloses
the method of claim 1, wherein the multiple vehicles include multiple cars. [0023]
Referring to Claim 17:
Fugit discloses
the method of claim 1, wherein the multiple position indicator assemblies include multiple position indicators mounted in different locations on the multiple vehicles. [0034]
Referring to Claim 18:
Fugit discloses
the method of claim 1, wherein the venue is a racing venue having a predefined racecourse, and the multiple vehicles are any one of cars, motorcycles, trucks, aircraft, or watercraft. [0042]
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fugit in view of IMSA in further view of “LED display panels are back and better than ever for 2019 season” (https://www.indycar.com/News/2019/02/02-27-LED-panels-for-2019 published 2/27/2019) herein after referred to as “Indycar”.
Referring to Claim 6:
Fugit discloses the indicating units display a caution situation [0043]. Fugit does not expressly disclose where the caution indicator is displayed instead of the position.
Indycar discloses a LED display panel that is attached to the exterior of the car and is able to display position information, and also when the car is in the pits the position information is replaced by a clock timing the car’s pitstop, or if the car is disabled, the display will display “horizontal red bars climbing from bottom to top”. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the caution display disclosed by Indycar with the position display indicating units disclosed by Fugit. Fugit and IMSA would have been motived to combine the caution display by Indycar because all of the reference are in the same field of endeavor and to “better assist fans with understanding how each driver is performing in every session…” as disclosed by Indycar.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Rutao Wu whose telephone number is (571)272-6045. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at 571-272-5350. 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.
/RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights