DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 10,412,800, hereafter referred to as ‘Beattie’. Regarding claim 1, Beattie discloses a light emitting system (figures 1-4B) comprising: a vehicle 121 (figures 1D-1E); a plurality of light emitting modules (100, 102, each light module 100 is mounted on the vehicle as shown in figures 1D-1E and each light module is disposed in the vehicle via each light module’s hard wiring to an internal display 218, power supply 106, controller 108 and user interface 216 inside of the vehicle, see col. 3, lines 60-63 and col. 10, line 15 to col. 12, line 7, also see figure 2B), circuitry (108, 210, 212, 216, 218, 220) disposed in the vehicle and configured to control the plurality of light emitting modules (see col. 10, line 15 to col. 12, line 7, also see figure 2B) , wherein at least one of the plurality of light emitting modules is configured to be selectively turned on by a user (col. 10, lines 50-57, col. 11, lines 38-54 and claims 8 and 16), via the circuitry, so as for purpose to be recognized from an outside of the vehicle (figures 1D, 1E and 3, also see col. 3, line 18 to col. 12, line 46).
Regarding claim 2, the light emitting system according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of light emitting modules (100, 102) include a first light emitting module, and wherein the first light emitting module includes a light emitting device formed across an entire plane of the first light emitting module. Thereof (see figures 1A-1C and fig. 3, also see col. 3, line 21 to col. 11, line 54, a plurality of LEDs are positioned on a transparent or colored substrate 103 which forms a lighting device across an entire plane of the LED module).
Regarding claim 3, the light emitting system according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of the light emitting modules include a first light emitting module 100, and wherein the first light emitting module is used in a display and is configured to turn on in response to the vehicle being controlled to reduce speed (see col. 8, lines 36-44).
Regarding claim 10, the light emitting system according to claim 1, wherein the light emitting system is applied to a signal displayed outwardly during supply of electric energy to the vehicle (col. 3, line 60 to col. 10, line 57, the light emitting system is applied to a signal displayed outwardly during supply of electric to the vehicle from the power source 106)
Regarding claim 11, the light emitting system according to claim 1, wherein the light emitting system is configured to implement a string of characters (see col. 11, lines 55-65).
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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beattie. Regarding claim 4, Beattie discloses the claimed invention except for the teaching that the light emitting modules include a first light emitting module which comprises a first light emitting device configured to emit light, a second light emitting device configured to emit green light, and a third light emitting device configured to emit blue light, and wherein each of the first, second, and third light emitting devices are individually controlled.
Beattie discloses the plurality of the light emitting modules includes a first light emitting module 100, wherein the first light emitting module includes a plurality of light emitting devices configured to emit blue, red, green, yellow and orange light (see col. 8, lines 45-62). The light emitting devices are individually controlled (see col. 8, lines 45-62, col. 10, lines 50-57, col. 11, lines 38-54 and claims 8 and 16).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify light emitting system of Beattie so a first light emitting module includes a first light emitting device configured to emit light, a second light emitting device configured to emit green light, and a third light emitting device configured to emit blue light, and wherein each of the first, second, and third light emitting devices are individually controlled since such a modification would have merely been an obvious engineering design choice yielding the predictable results of using different colors and numbers of light emitting devices to efficiently convey information.
Regarding claim 5, Beattie as applied in claim 4 further teaches that the plurality of the light emitting modules includes a first light emitting module 100, wherein the firs light emitting module includes a plurality of light emitting devices configured to emit five colors, blue, red, green, yellow and orange light (see col. 8, lines 45-62).
it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to modify the first light emitting module of Beattie so it is used in response to the vehicle implementing at least four colors since such a modification would have merely been an obvious engineering design choice yielding the predictable results of using different colors and numbers of light emitting devices to efficiently convey information.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beattie. Regarding claim 6, Beattie discloses the claimed invention except for the teaching that the light emitting modules includes a first light emitting module which comprises a first light emitting device configured to emit red light, a second light emitting device configured to emit yellow light, and a third light emitting device configured to emit cyan light.
Beattie discloses the plurality of the light emitting modules includes a first light emitting module 100, wherein the firs light emitting module includes a plurality of light emitting devices configured to emit blue, red, green, yellow and orange light (see col. 8, lines 45-62).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the first light emitting module of Beattie so it includes a first light emitting device configured to emit red light, a second light emitting device configured to emit yellow light, and a third light emitting device configured to emit cyan light since such a modification would have merely been an obvious engineering design choice yielding the predictable results of using different colors and numbers of light emitting devices to efficiently convey information.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beattie. Regarding claim 7, Beattie discloses the claimed invention except for the teaching that a first light emitting module is configured to display information about a form of energy that propels the vehicle.
Beattie discloses the plurality of the light emitting modules includes a first light emitting module 100, wherein the first light emitting module includes a plurality of light emitting devices configured to emit blue, red, green, yellow and orange light (see col. 8, lines 45-62).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the first light emitting module of Beattie so the first light emitting module is configured to display information about a form of energy that propels the vehicle since such a modification would have merely been an obvious engineering design choice yielding the predictable results of conveying different vital information to the driver, such as indicating how much gas in the gas tank or if the vehicle is electric how much electricity is left before having to electrically charge the vehicle.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beattie. Regarding claim 8, Beattie discloses the claimed invention except for the teaching that the first light emitting module includes three light emitting devices configured to emit red light.
Beattie discloses the plurality of the light emitting modules includes a first light emitting module 100, wherein the first light emitting module includes a plurality of light emitting devices configured to emit blue, red, green, yellow and orange light (see col. 8, lines 45-62).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the first light emitting module of Beattie so it includes three light emitting devices configured to emit emitting red light since such a modification would have merely been an obvious engineering design choice yielding the predictable results of using different colors and numbers of light emitting devices to efficiently convey information.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beattie as applied in claim 8 in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0338237, hereafter referred to as ‘Chu’. Regarding claim 9, Beattie as applied in claim 8 discloses the claimed invention except for the teaching that a brightness of the red light of the first light emitting module is configured to be adjusted.
Chu teaches an illuminated vehicle display that includes a first light emitting module which includes adjusting the brightness of light emitted by the plurality of LEDs (para. # 75) for maintaining a relatively constant brightness level (para. # 75).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the first light emitting module of Beattie so it includes adjusting the brightness of red light emitted by the plurality of reds LEDs as taught by Chu since such a modification would have merely been an obvious engineering design choice yielding the predictable results of maintaining a relatively constant brightness level.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beattie in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0166937, hereafter referred to as ‘Adoni’. Regarding claim 12, Beattie discloses the claimed invention except for the teaching that the light emitting system is configured to be implemented via a subscription service.
Adoni teaches a light emitting system is configured to be implemented via a subscription service (para. # 47); wherein the subscription service includes: the steps of: selecting, by a user, an option via an intermediary; paying, by the user, a charge for the selected option; and providing, by a service supplier, a corresponding service through operation of the plurality of multiple light emitting modules.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify light emitting system of Beattie so it is configured to be implemented via a subscription service as taught by Adoni in order to provide the customer the service of creating, maintaining and updating the lighting system of Beattie.
Regarding claim 13, It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify light emitting system of Beattie in view of Adoni so that the subscription service is applied to at least one of an internal display or an external display of the vehicle in order to provide the driver and other drivers the subscription information.
Regarding claim 14, It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify light emitting system of Beattie in view of Adoni so that the subscription service includes: the steps of: selecting, by a user, an option via an intermediary; paying, by the user, a charge for the selected option; and providing, by a service supplier, a corresponding service through operation of the plurality of multiple light emitting modules as taught by Adoni in order to create, maintain and update the lighting system of Beattie.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wilson discloses a lighting device which is similar to applicant’s invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M SEMBER whose telephone number is (571)272-2381. The examiner can normally be reached flexing generally from 7 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. M-F.
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, ABDULMAJEED Aziz can be reached at 571-270-5046. 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.
/THOMAS M SEMBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875