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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/2/2026 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims 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.
Claims 1, 5, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai (US 20210183278) in view of Seifert (US 20070188341) and Day et al. (US 20190295207).
Regarding Claim 1, Lai discloses a signage device comprising a housing configured to be attached to a structure that maintains said housing a distance above the ground (address signs mounted high on wall on house, Paragraph 33), wherein said signage device further comprises: at least one of an electrical power source and an electrical lead for connection to an electrical power source (Solar and AC Power,
Fig. 6, Paragraph 42); a display portion electrically connected to said at least one of an electrical power source and an electrical lead for connection to an electrical power source, to be electrically energized
(digital sign using LED or other technology where item 100 is connected to power, Paragraphs 34 and 42) thereby, wherein said display portion comprises: at least one display portion illumination mechanism
(Sign includes multiple display portions (Items 201-203, LED, Paragraph 42); electronic hardware configured to provide an electrical signal that controls an operational state of said at least one display portion illumination mechanism and thereby determines a visible characteristic of said display portion
(MCU causes message change, Paragraphs 35-39); at least one of: a) a software or b) a wired connection or c) a wireless connection, configured to make the electronic hardware change said operational state of said at least one display portion illumination mechanism (wireless link used to receive signal and change display output, Paragraph 36); and wherein said visible characteristic of said display portion includes an array of numeric or alphanumeric content during a typical operational state (figure 2, Items 201-203,
Paragraphs 34-25); wherein said signage device further includes a distress beacon, and said electronic hardware being operable to activate said distress beacon during a nontypical operational state (SOS displayed, Paragraphs 36 and 39), however Lai fails to explicitly discloses the beacon that is physically separate from and not part of the display portion illumination mechanism and that is separately operable from the display portion.
In an analogous art, Seifert discloses a beacon separately operable from a house number display portion (Paragraphs 21-24, Figure 1 shows signal beacon item 10 separate from residential address display Item 16 and 24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a separately operable beacon from a house number display to aid police in identifying a correct location for help (Seifert, Paragraph 7).
In an analogous art, Day et al. discloses a beacon that is physically separate from and not part of the display portion illumination mechanism and that is separately operable from a display (Fig. 3D, shows signal lighting strobes items 397 and 398 which are physically separate from the display sign as they are above the sign and not part of the display portion item 400 and 392, Paragraph 105).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the beacons physically separate from the display in order to draw additional attention in an emergency situation (Paragraph 162 of Day et al.).
Regarding Claim 5, Lai further discloses said distress beacon comprises a secondary illumination mechanism activated separately from said display portion illumination mechanism (Middle Portion Item 202 can be separately changed and activated to display SOS as shown in Figure 3., Paragraphs 34-36).
Regarding Claim 13, Lai discloses a display portion and a distress beacon however Lai fails to explicitly disclose the display and beacon are in communication with one another, directly or indirectly, such that the display portion can operate in a first regard and whereby the beacon can operate in a second regard in connection with a single event.
In an analogous art, Day et al. discloses a display and a beacon are in communication with one another, directly or indirectly, such that the display portion can operate in a first regard and whereby the beacon can operate in a second regard in connection with a single event (Threat detected and utilize multiple output devices include smart signage and warning lights which are linked and can be independently controlled and/or activated, Paragraphs 67, 70, 105 and 191).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a display and beacon in communication with one another directly or indirectly where the display and beacon can operate separately in connection with a single even in order to allow a master controller to provide situation specific directions (Paragraph 3 of Day et al.).
Regarding Claim 14, Lai discloses a display portion and a distress beacon however Lai fails to explicitly disclose the display beacon emits a first light and whereby the distress beacon emits a second light different from the first light.
In an analogous art, Day et al. discloses the display beacon emits a first light and whereby the distress beacon emits a second light different from the first light (output devices include lights having different colors and lights that flash, Paragraph 70).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have different lights for the display and beacon to allow a master controller to dictate the required response or protocol (Paragraph 102 of Day et al.).
Claim(s) 3, 4, 6, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai (US 20210183278) and Seifert (US 2000188341), Day et al. (US 20190295207) and further in view of Newcomb (US 20210117915) and Huh et al. (US 9728052).
Regarding Claim 3, Lai further discloses said distress beacon comprises a system for converting said display portion illumination mechanism to an alternative operational state and changing said
numerical or alphanumerical content to include an emergency message instead of said alphanumerical content (SOS Displayed, Paragraphs 34-36) however Lai fails to disclose an alternative operational state including at least one of: flashing part of or all of said display portion illumination mechanism; increasing a brilliance of a light emitted from said display portion illumination mechanism; and changing a color of a light emitted from said display portion illumination mechanism.
In an analogous art, Newcomb discloses and alternate operational state including flashing part of or all of said display portion illumination mechanism (Paragraph 50) and changing a color of a light
emitted from said display portion illumination mechanism (Paragraph 50).
In an analogous art, Huh et al. discloses increasing a brilliance of a light emitted from said display portion illumination mechanism (control brightness, Col. 15, Lines 53-60).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have use flashing lights, increasing brilliance, and changing colors of the light emitted to increase awareness as taught by Huh et al. (Col. 15, Lines 53-60).
Regarding Claim 4, Lai further discloses an alternative operational state includes changing said numerical or alphanumerical content to include an emergency message instead of said alphanumerical content (SOS Displayed, Paragraph 36).
However Lai fails to disclose changing a color of a light emitted from said display portion illumination mechanism.
In an analogous art, Newcomb discloses changing a color of a light emitted from said display portion illumination mechanism (Paragraph 50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to have changed colors of a light emitted to increase awareness.
Regarding Claim 6, Lai further discloses a secondary illumination mechanism is controllable by said electronic hardware to enter at least one secondary illumination mode (MCU controls display and SOS Displayed, Paragraph 36-39) however Lai fails to disclose the secondary illumination mechanism is physically distinct from and external to the display portion illumination mechanism, and has a mode including at least one of: flashing part of or all of said secondary illumination mechanism; increasing a brilliance of a light emitted from said secondary illumination mechanism; changing a color of a light emitted from said secondary illumination mechanism; and moving or redirecting a beam or ray of a light emitted from said secondary illumination mechanism.
In an analogous art, Seifert discloses a secondary illumination mechanism including flashing part of or all of said secondary illumination mechanism (flashing lights, Paragraph 27); and moving or
redirecting a beam or ray of a light emitted from said secondary illumination mechanism (rotating beacon thus moving a ray of light around a circle, Paragraph 27).
In an analogous art, Newcomb discloses changing a color of a light emitted from said second illumination mechanism (Paragraph 50).
In an analogous art, Huh et al. discloses increasing a brilliance of a light emitted from said display portion illumination mechanism (control brightness, Col. 15, Lines 53-60).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have including a flashing part, moving a beam of light, changing color, and increase the brilliance of a light emitted from second illumination mechanism to order to increase
awareness as taught by Huh et al. (Col. 15, Lines 53-60).
In an analogous art, Day et al. discloses a secondary illumination mechanism that is physically distinct from and external to the display portion illumination mechanism, and that is separately operable from a display (Fig. 3D, shows signal lighting strobes items 397 and 398 which are physically separate from the display sign as they are above the sign and not part of the display portion item 400 and 392, Paragraph 105).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the beacons physically separate from the display in order to draw additional attention in an emergency situation (Paragraph 162 of Day et al.).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai (US 20210183278), Newcomb (US 20210117915), Huh et al. (US 9728052), Seifert (US 20070188341), Day et al. (US 20190295207), and further in view of Deng et al. (US 20210304586).
Regarding Claim 7, Lai further discloses a secondary illumination mode (SOS displayed, Paragraph 36, Figure 3), however Lai fails to disclose the secondary illumination mode includes moving or
redirecting a beam or ray of a light emitted from said secondary illumination mechanism, and wherein; said secondary illumination mode further includes ejecting smoke from the signage device such that said beam or ray of light illuminates said smoke.
In an analogous art, Seifert discloses moving or redirecting a beam or ray of a light emitted from said secondary illumination mechanism (rotating beacon thus moving a ray of light around a circle,
Paragraph 27).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have include a moving beam of light to increase awareness.
In an analogous art, Deng et al. discloses a beacon and the secondary illumination mode further includes ejecting smoke from the signage device such that said beam or ray of light illuminates said
smoke (both strobe lights and Smoke generator deployed outside the building thus the light would illuminate the smoke, Paragraph 49).
All of the component parts are known in Lai, Newcomb, Huh et al., Seifert, and Deng et al. The only difference is the combination of the “”old elements” into a single device by mounting them into a single housing.
Thus It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention mount the smoke ejector taught by Deng et al. on the housing of a house number display as taught by Lai, since the operation of the smoke ejector is in no way dependent on the operation of the other equipment of the display, and a smoke ejector could be used in combination with a display to achieve the predictable results of increasing awareness as further supported by Deng et al., (Paragraph 5).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai (US 20210183278) in view of Huh et al. (US 9728052) and Seifert (US 20070188341), Day et al. (US 20190295207).
Regarding Claim 8, Lai discloses. A method for controlling a signage device, said signage device comprising a housing configured to be attached to a structure that maintains said housing a distance above the ground (address signs mounted high on wall on house, Paragraph 33), wherein said signage device further comprises: at least one of an electrical power source and an electrical lead for connection to an electrical power source (Solar and AC Power, Figure 6, Paragraph 42); a display portion electrically connected to said at least one of an electrical power source and an electrical lead for connection to an
electrical power source, to be electrically energized digital sign using LED or other technology where
item 100 is connected to power, Paragraphs 34 and 42) thereby, wherein said display portion comprises: at least one display portion illumination mechanism (Items 201-203 and LED sign, Paragraphs 34 and 42); at least one non-display portion illumination mechanism (Item 201-203, Figure 2, Paragraph 34); said method comprising: firstly, presenting a numerical representation on said display portion illumination mechanism, said numerical representation including at least one digit and less than eight digits (Figure 2, Item 202 House Number “5168”, Paragraph 34); secondly, presenting said numerical representation on said display portion illumination mechanism, displaying a secondary illumination from said non-display portion illumination mechanism (SOS Displayed, Paragraphs 36 and 39), However Lai fails to disclose for the secondary illumination mechanism, emitting a high-intensity light and the non-display portion illumination mechanism that is physically separate from and is separately operable from the display portion, and secondly, while presenting said representation on said display portion illumination mechanism, displaying a secondary illumination from said non-display portion illumination mechanism.
In an analogous art, Huh et al. discloses an illumination mechanism, emitting a high-intensity light (Control brightness thus including emitting a high-intensity or high brightness light, Col. 15, Lines 53-60).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have emit a high-intensity light in order to increase awareness to those
surrounding the area as taught by Huh et al. (Col. 15, Lines 53-60).
In an analogous art, Seifert discloses a non-display portion illumination mechanism separately operable from a house number display portion (Paragraphs 21-24, Figure 1 shows signal beacon item 10 separate from residential address display Item 16 and 24).
It would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a separately operable non-display portion illumination mechanism from a house number display to aid police in identifying a correct location for help (Seifert, Paragraph 7).
In an analogous art, Day et al. discloses a non-display portion illumination mechanism that is physically separate from and not part of the display portion illumination mechanism and that is separately operable from a display and while presenting said representation on said display portion illumination mechanism, displaying a secondary illumination from said non-display portion illumination mechanism (Fig. 3D, shows signal lighting strobes items 397 and 398 which are physically separate from the display sign as they are above the sign and not part of the display portion item 400 and 392, additionally the display of material in item 400 is separate and continues while the strobes are active as they are independent of each other, Paragraph 105).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the beacons physically separate from the display and to display the strobes while having additional information displayed in order to draw additional attention and provide all the relevant information in an emergency situation (Paragraph 162 of Day et al.).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai (US 20210183278) in view of Huh et al. (US 9728052) and Seifert (US 20070188341), Day et al. (US 20190295207) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Newcomb (US 20210117915).
Regarding Claim 9, Lai discloses controlling a signage device emitting a light from said non-display portion illumination mechanism (Display SOS, Paragraphs 36-39) however Lai fails to disclose the illumination mechanism including one of flashing said high-intensity light, moving said high-intensity
light, and changing a color of said high-intensity light.
In an analogous art, Seifert discloses a secondary illumination mechanism including flashing part of or all of said secondary illumination mechanism (flashing lights, Paragraph 27); and moving or
redirecting a beam or ray of a light emitted from said secondary illumination mechanism (rotating beacon thus moving a ray of light around a circle, Paragraph 27).
In an analogous art, Newcomb discloses changing a color of a light emitted from said second illumination mechanism (Paragraph 50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have including a flashing part, moving a beam of light, changing color in a
second illumination mechanism to order to increase awareness and provide alternative alarms that allow for broadcasting to surrounding areas.
Regarding Claim 10, Lai discloses controlling a signage device emitting a light from said non-display portion illumination mechanism (Display SOS, Paragraphs 36-39) however Lai fails to disclose the illumination mechanism including flashing or changing a color of said display portion illumination mechanism while performing said at least one of flashing said high-intensity light, moving said high
intensity light, and changing a color of said high-intensity light.
In an analogous art, Seifert discloses an illumination mechanism including flashing part of or all of said illumination mechanism (flashing lights, Paragraph 27); and moving or redirecting a beam or ray of a light emitted from said illumination mechanism (rotating beacon thus moving a ray of light around a circle, Paragraph 27).
In an analogous art, Newcomb discloses changing a color of a light emitted from said illumination mechanism (Paragraph 50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have including a flashing part, moving a beam of light, changing color in an
illumination mechanism in combination to order to increase awareness and provide alternative alarms that allow for broadcasting to surrounding areas.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Lai (US 20210183278) in view of Huh et al. (US 9728052) and Seifert (US 20070188341), Day et al. (US 20190295207) as applied to claim 8 above and further in view of Deng et al. (US 20210304586).
Regarding Claim 11, Lai further discloses an illumination mode (SOS displayed, Paragraph 36,
Figure 3), however Lai fails to disclose ejecting smoke upwardly from said signage device and illuminating said smoke with said high-intensity light being emitting from said non-display portion illumination mechanism.
In an analogous art, Seifert discloses moving or redirecting a beam or ray of a light emitted from said illumination mechanism (rotating beacon thus moving a ray of light around a circle, Paragraph 27).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have include a moving beam of light to increase awareness.
In an analogous art, Deng et al. discloses a beacon and the illumination mode further includes ejecting smoke such that said beam or ray of light illuminates said smoke (both strobe lights and Smoke generator deployed outside the building thus the light would illuminate the smoke, Paragraph 49), but does not eject the smoke at the signage device.
All of the component parts are known in Lai, Newcomb, Huh et al., Seifert, and Deng et al. The only difference is the combination of the “”old elements” into a single device by mounting them into a single housing.
Thus It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention mount the smoke ejector taught by Deng et al. on the housing of a house number display as taught by Lai, since the operation of the smoke ejector is in no way dependent on the operation of the other equipment of the display, and a smoke ejector could be used in combination with a display to achieve the predictable results of increasing awareness as further supported by Deng et al., (Paragraph 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-11 and 13-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In response to applicant's argument that one would not structurally redesign Lai’s flat digital sign teaching with Seifert strobes, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore examiner disagrees with applicant’s argument on hindsight reconstruction rationale and that incorporating Seifert’s beacons in Lai’s housing would require substantial modification, as independently controlled strobe lights are extremely well known in the art and adding any additional visual indicators in any position or location both internally and externally are well within one skilled in the art furthermore evidenced by the new rejection and Day et al. (US 20190295207). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., dual-mode system in which the display portion and distress beacon are electronically coordinated and specifically in which specific manner they are electronically coordinated or “unified control” as argued) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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). Regarding applicant’s argument that obviousness requires more than the identification of each claim element somewhere in the prior art, examiner disagrees as per KSR, as the claims merely combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. As referenced above in the rejection, the prior art cited included each element claimed although not necessarily in a single reference, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and the combination, each element merely performed the same function as it did separately. The strobe light as claimed performs the strobe function and the sign displays information. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were not only predictable but also in some cases motivated by explicit teachings of the prior art. Examiner disagrees with applicant’s assertion that the rejection is merely incorporating feature stacking and an aggressive extrapolation across disparate technological contexts as stated above the prior art element are known and without any change in their respective function the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Therefore the claims are broadly interpreted are disclosed by the references for the reasons above in the rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Lim whose telephone number is (571)270-1210. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays 9am-5pm, Tuesday-Friday 8:30am-5pm.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/STEVEN LIM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2688