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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (e). The provisional Application No. 63/503,261, filed on 05/19/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/29/2024 was filed and has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings that were filed on 04/29/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 4-13, and 17-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 4, and 13 are currently amended.
Claims 2-3, and 14-16 are cancelled.
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leis et al. (US 5166663), and herein after will be referred to as Leis, in view of Ringer et al. (US 10343598 B2), and herein after will be referred to as Ringer.
Regarding Claim 1, Leis teaches a vehicle sign device, comprising:
a sign member (A pivoting sign means or structure; Leis Col 3 lines 21-23);
a mounting member (A boxlike housing serves as a mounting member to the motor vehicle; Leis Col 3 lines 24-27);
a vehicle (The device is mounted on a motor vehicle; Leis Col 3 lines 18-21);
an actuator assembly (Internal components include an actuator means such as an air cylinder; Leis Col 4 lines 11-14);
the mounting member comprising a mounting surface and a casing (A boxlike housing serves as a casing and the flat side attaches to the vehicle as a mounting surface; Leis Col 3 lines 24-27);
the actuator assembly comprising a rotational actuator (An air cylinder that is actuated to rotationally operate the sign assembly about the pivot axis; Leis Col 4 lines 11-16 );
a power source (The device is electrically coupled to the vehicle’s electrical system via power terminal of the flasher that serves as a power source; Leis Col 5 lines 52-56);
a HID (The device is operated by a button or switch element normally provided within the vehicle; Leis Col 5 lines 60-63);
the rotational actuator being mechanically connected to the sign member (Air cylinder controllably operates a rotating bracket of the sign assembly on the pivot axis; Leis Col 4 lines 15-16);
the sign member being axially connected to the mounting member (The sign structure is pivotally mounted to the housing that allows the sign to rotate about an axis; Col 3 lines 28-30)
the mounting member being laterally mounted onto the vehicle along the mounting surface (The housing is mounted on the side wall of the vehicle; Leis Col 3 lines 47-48);
the actuator assembly being mounted within the casing (The actuator means are internal components of the device and located inside the housing; Leis Col 4 lines 11-14);
the actuator assembly being operably integrated between the mounting member and the sign member, wherein operating the actuator assembly governs axial rotation of the sign member between a retracted configuration and a deployed configuration (The device actuates the air cylinder to rotate the bracket of the sign assembly to a retracted position and an extended position; Col 3 lines 30-32, Col 4 lines 14-16).
Leis does not explicitly teach a micro controller; a wireless communication module; a computing device; the rotational actuator and the HID being electronically coupled to the microcontroller; the power source being electrically connected to the microcontroller, the wireless communication module being electronically coupled to the microcontroller; and the wireless communication module being communicably coupled to the computing device.
However, Ringer discloses a safety sign device that includes a controller with a wireless transceiver to remotely actuate the motor from a mobile cellular phone device over the internet (Ringer Col 6 lines 52-58). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitations of a micro controller, a wireless communication module, a computing device, the power source being electrically connected to the microcontroller, the wireless communication module being electronically coupled to the microcontroller, and the wireless communication module being communicably coupled to the computing device because the safety sign device includes a controller with a wireless transceiver to communicate with a mobile computing device, which necessitates power to operate. Ringer further teaches that the vehicle includes a control panel mounted on the interior of the vehicle for the driver to actuate the motor (Ringer Col 6 lines 46-51) which requires electronic coupling through the controller to actuate the motor. This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of the rotational actuator and the HID being electronically coupled to the microcontroller because the control panel allows the operator to actuate the motor which necessitates the actuator and control panel to be coupled to the controller.
Leis and Ringer are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of sign devices for vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the pneumatic system of Leis to incorporate the controller to electronically actuate the motor of the safety sign device from the control panel or from a wireless computing device as taught by Ringer based on the motivation to improve the system by providing electronic circuitry capable of allowing wireless operation of the system through the control panel mounted in the interior of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 5, Leis and Ringer remains as applied above in claim 1. Leis further teaches
a plurality of illuminating devices; and the plurality of illuminating devices being integrated onto the sign member (Leis explicitly teaches the sign plate contains two electrically operated with lights; Leis Col 4 lines 1-2).
Regarding Claim 7, Leis and Ringer remains as applied above in claim 1. Leis further teaches the…label being laterally mounted onto a first surface of the sign member (A stop sign plate includes the labeling stop on the sign member; Leis Col 3 lines 39-41).
Leis does not explicitly teach a caution label.
However, Leis discloses that its sign member is a stop sign plate which is equivalent to a caution label that is intended to provide a cautious warning for other drivers to stop (Leis Col 3 lines 39-41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to interpret the stop sign plate, as taught by Leis, as a type of cautious label. In the context of vehicle safety, both terms refer to visual indicators intended to convey warnings or instructions to surrounding traffic.
Regarding Claim 10, Leis and Ringer remains as applied above in claim 1. Leis does not explicitly teach the sign member deploys and retracts in sync with the turn signal of the vehicle.
However, Leis discloses that the power and actuation of the device goes through a single electrical current signal control line where the single control line provides for the lighting on the warning lights on the sign plate (Leis Col 5 lines 52-59). Leis further teaches that the device is operated by the same button or switch that is normally provided in vehicles to illuminate or flash the lights of a vehicle (Leis Col 5 lines 60-63). It is well understood that a turn signal is an illuminated flashing light from a vehicle to provide other drivers warning of a vehicle maneuver. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Leis and Ringer by connecting the control line to the vehicle’s turn signal circuit based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to synchronize the sign deployment with the turning action of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 12, Leis and Ringer remains as applied above in claim 1. Leis further teaches a first surface and a second surface, wherein the first surface is positioned opposite to the second surface across the sign member (A sign plate that inherently has two opposing surfaces; Leis Col 3 lines 39-41, FIG. 2);
the first surface oriented facing a lateral surface of the vehicle during the retracted mode (The retracted position in FIG. 1 shows the first surface oriented parallel and facing the side of the vehicle; Leis FIG. 1); and
the first surface oriented normal to the lateral surface of the vehicle during the deployed mode (The sign structure extends ninety degrees from the retracted position to the extended position; Leis Col 3 lines 30-36).
Claim(s) 4, 13, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leis in view of Ringer, as applied in claim 1, and in further view of Wicker et al. (US 4956630), herein after will be referred to as Wicker.
Regarding Claim 4, Leis and Ringer remains as applied in claim 1. Leis does not explicitly teach a sensor; a dash camera; the sensor and the dash camera being laterally integrated onto the mounting member; and the sensor and the dash camera being electronically coupled to the microcontroller.
Ringer teaches a safety sign device that includes an image sensor device and memory/processing circuitry (Ringer Col 5 lines 33-43) to record an area for record keeping purposes. Furthermore, the safety sign device is laterally integrated to the first hinge coupled to the side of the vehicle (Ringer Col 3 lines 18-20). The image sensor is equivalent to the claimed dash camera because it records an area for record keeping purposes and is located within the safety sign device that is laterally integrated onto a mounting member to the vehicle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Leis to incorporate the teachings of an image sensor device as taught by Ringer based on the motivation to document and record historical data for record keeping purposes in the case of any automotive related accidents.
Leis and Ringer does not explicitly teach a sensor; the sensor…being laterally integrated onto the mounting member; and the sensor…being electronically coupled to the microcontroller.
However, Wicker, in the same field of endeavor teaches a control circuit that contains a current sensor that detects an object or child in the path of the crossing arm (Wicker Col 8 lines 43-65) where the control circuit is contained within a housing that is laterally integrated onto the vehicle (Wicker FIG. 5 and Col 6 lines 37). The current sensor resides within the control circuit which is equivalent to the sensor electronically coupled to the microcontroller.
Leis, Ringer, and Wicker are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of sign devices for vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Leis and Ringer to incorporate the teachings of a sensor that is embedded into the control circuitry and integrated into the housing as taught by Wicker based on the motivation to improve the detection of an object within the path of a crossing arm.
Regarding Claim 13, Leis teaches a vehicle sign device, comprising:
a sign member (A pivoting sign means or structure; Leis Col 3 lines 21-23);
a mounting member (A boxlike housing serves as a mounting member to the motor vehicle; Leis Col 3 lines 24-27);
an actuator assembly (Internal components include an actuator means such as an air cylinder; Leis Col 4 lines 11-14);
a vehicle (The device is mounted on a motor vehicle; Leis Col 3 lines 18-21);
a plurality of illuminating devices (Leis explicitly teaches the sign plate contains two electrically operated with lights; Leis Col 4 lines 1-2);
the mounting member comprising a mounting surface and a casing (A boxlike housing serves as a casing and the flat side attaches to the vehicle as a mounting surface; Leis Col 3 lines 24-27);
the actuator assembly comprising a rotational actuator (An air cylinder that is actuated to rotationally operate the sign assembly about the pivot axis; Leis Col 4 lines 11-16 );
a power source (The device is electrically coupled to the vehicle’s electrical system via power terminal of the flasher that serves as a power source; Leis Col 5 lines 52-56);
a HID (The device is operated by a button or switch element normally provided within the vehicle; Leis Col 5 lines 60-63);
the sign member being axially connected to the mounting member (The sign structure is pivotally mounted to the housing that allows the sign to rotate about an axis; Col 3 lines 28-30);
the mounting member being laterally mounted onto the vehicle along the mounting surface (The housing is mounted on the side wall of the vehicle; Leis Col 3 lines 47-48);
the actuator assembly being mounted within the casing (The actuator means are internal components of the device and located inside the housing; Leis Col 4 lines 11-14);
the rotational actuator being mechanically connected to the sign member (Air cylinder controllably operates a rotating bracket of the sign assembly on the pivot axis; Leis Col 4 lines 15-16);
the actuator assembly being operably integrated between the mounting member and the sign member, wherein operating the actuator assembly governs axial rotation of the sign member between a retracted configuration and a deployed configuration (The device actuates the air cylinder to rotate the bracket of the sign assembly to a retracted position and an extended position; Col 3 lines 30-32, Col 4 lines 14-16);
the plurality of illuminating devices being integrated onto the sign member (Leis explicitly teaches the sign plate contains two electrically operated with lights; Leis Col 4 lines 1-2).
Leis does not explicitly teach a sensor; a dash camera; a micro controller; a wireless communication module; a computing device; the rotational actuator and the HID being electronically coupled to the microcontroller; the power source being electrically connected to the microcontroller, the wireless communication module being electronically coupled to the microcontroller; the wireless communication module being communicably coupled to the computing device, the sensor and the dash camera being laterally integrated onto the mounting member; and the sensor and the dash camera being electronically coupled to the microcontroller.
However, Ringer discloses a safety sign device that includes a controller with a wireless transceiver to remotely actuate the motor from a mobile cellular phone device over the internet (Ringer Col 6 lines 52-58). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitations of a micro controller, a wireless communication module, a computing device, the power source being electrically connected to the microcontroller, the wireless communication module being electronically coupled to the microcontroller, and the wireless communication module being communicably coupled to the computing device because the safety sign device includes a controller with a wireless transceiver to communicate with a mobile computing device, which necessitates power to operate. Ringer further teaches that the vehicle includes a control panel mounted on the interior of the vehicle for the driver to actuate the motor (Ringer Col 6 lines 46-51) which requires electronic coupling through the controller to actuate the motor. This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of the rotational actuator and the HID being electronically coupled to the microcontroller because the control panel allows the operator to actuate the motor which necessitates the actuator and control panel to be coupled to the controller. Ringer teaches a safety sign device that includes an image sensor device and memory/processing circuitry (Ringer Col 5 lines 33-43) to record an area for record keeping purposes. Furthermore, the safety sign device is laterally integrated to the first hinge coupled to the side of the vehicle (Ringer Col 3 lines 18-20). The image sensor is equivalent to the claimed dash camera because it records an area for record keeping purposes and is located within the safety sign device that is laterally integrated onto a mounting member to the vehicle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the pneumatic system of Leis to incorporate the controller with an image sensor device and wireless capabilities as taught by Ringer based on the motivation to improve the system by providing electronic circuitry capable of allowing wireless operation of viewing the exterior of the vehicle and actuating the device.
Leis and Ringer does not explicitly teach a sensor; the sensor…being laterally integrated onto the mounting member; and the sensor…being electronically coupled to the microcontroller.
However, Wicker teaches a control circuit that contains a current sensor that detects an object or child in the path of the crossing arm (Wicker Col 8 lines 43-65) where the control circuit is contained within a housing that is laterally integrated onto the vehicle (Wicker FIG. 5 and Col 6 lines 37). The current sensor resides within the control circuit which is equivalent to the sensor electronically coupled to the microcontroller. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the combination of Leis and Ringer to incorporate the teachings of a sensor that is embedded into the control circuitry and integrated into the housing as taught by Wicker based on the motivation to improve the system by detecting an object within the path of the sign device. This provides the benefit of enhancing the safety of the sign device by avoiding any objects that may impede on the operation of the device.
Regarding Claim 17, the prior art combination remains as applied above in claim 13. Leis further teaches the…label being laterally mounted onto a first surface of the sign member (A stop sign plate includes the labeling stop on the sign member; Leis Col 3 lines 39-41).
Leis does not explicitly teach a caution label.
However, Leis discloses that its sign member is a stop sign plate which is equivalent to a caution label that is intended to provide a cautious warning for other drivers to stop (Leis Col 3 lines 39-41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to interpret the stop sign plate, as taught by Leis, as a type of cautious label. In the context of vehicle safety, both terms refer to visual indicators intended to convey warnings or instructions to surrounding traffic.
Regarding Claim 19, the prior art combination remains as applied above in claim 13. Leis does not explicitly teach the sign member deploys and retracts in sync with the turn signal of the vehicle.
However, Leis discloses that the power and actuation of the device goes through a single electrical current signal control line where the single control line provides for the lighting on the warning lights on the sign plate (Leis Col 5 lines 52-59). Leis further teaches that the device is operated by the same button or switch that is normally provided in vehicles to illuminate or flash the lights of a vehicle (Leis Col 5 lines 60-63). It is well understood that a turn signal is an illuminated flashing light from a vehicle to provide other drivers warning of a vehicle maneuver. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the prior art combination by connecting the control line to the vehicle’s turn signal circuit based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to synchronize the sign deployment with the turning action of the vehicle.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leis in view of Ringer, as applied in claim 5, and in further view of Colip et al. (US 20030196360 A1), herein after will be referred to as Colip.
Regarding Claim 6, the prior art combination remains as applied above in claim 5. The prior art combination does not explicitly teach the plurality of illuminating devices being arranged in the shape of arrows and border lines; and progressively flashing the plurality of illuminating devices along the shape of arrows and borders.
However, Colip teaches a traffic control sign with lights arranged on link members that form the appearance of an arrow (Colip [0028]). Colip further teaches that the electronic control module could be used to sequence the lights in a on/off illumination mode to make the arrows appear as if they are moving from the base to the tip of the arrow that is functionally equivalent to a progressive flashing (Colip [0036]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Leis and Ringer to incorporate the teachings of arranging the lights to form an arrow and sequence the lights in an on/off illumination as taught by Colip based on the motivation to provide an effective warning signal by visually indicating a direction and the benefit of communication to nearby drivers.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leis in view of Ringer, as applied in claim 7, and in further view of Gamble et al. (US 11348491 B2), herein after will be referred to as Gamble.
Regarding Claim 8, Leis and Ringer remains as applied above in claim 7. Leis and Ringer does not explicitly teach the caution label is backlit.
However, Gamble, in the same field of endeavor teaches a self-contained illuminated sign to be mounted on a vehicle comprising of an LED based light source contained between a front and rear panel where the front panel is backlit by the light source (Gamble Col 21 lines 34-46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Leis and Ringer to incorporate the backlighting system as taught by Gamble based on the motivation to enhance the visibility of the warning message in adverse driving conditions.
Claim(s) 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leis in view of Ringer, as applied in claim 1, and in further view of Jefferson et al. (US 5355117), herein after will be referred to as Jefferson.
Regarding Claim 9, the prior art combination remains as applied above in claim 1. The prior art combination does not explicitly teach a locking mechanism; and the locking mechanism being operably coupled to the sign member, wherein operating the locking mechanism governs movement of the sign member.
However, Jefferson, in the same field of endeavor teaches vehicle mounted warning signs with a mechanical latch that functions as a locking mechanism to secure its sign in a stowed position (Jefferson Col 3 lines 3-5). Furthermore, Jefferson teaches that the locking mechanism is operably coupled to the sign member by a finger and that a forward pivoting motion to the latch allows the finger to be removed from the latch for the sign to deploy (Jefferson Col 3 lines 9-16), without the pivoting motion the latch functionally governs the movement of the sign. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the prior art combination to incorporate the mechanical latch as taught by Jefferson based on the motivation to provide a secure means of retaining the sign in a stowed position and preventing unintended deployments due to failures or external forces, thereby improving the operational safety of the system.
Regarding Claim 11, the prior art combination remains as applied above in claim 1. The prior art combination does not explicitly teach the sign member is deployed manually.
However, Jefferson discloses that the sign panel requires uncomplicated manual operation for deployment and stowage (Jefferson Col 3 lines 29-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the prior art combination to incorporate the manual deployment mechanism as taught by Jefferson. The motivation for this combination would be to provide a simple and reliable backup method in the case of a system failure and improving the systems usability with multiple methods of operation.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leis in view of Ringer, and in view of Wicker, as applied in claim 17, and in further view of Gamble.
Regarding Claim 18, Leis, Ringer, and Wicker remains as applied above in claim 17. Leis, Ringer, and Wicker does not explicitly teach the caution label is backlit.
However, Gamble, in the same field of endeavor teaches a self-contained illuminated sign to be mounted on a vehicle comprising of an LED based light source contained between a front and rear panel where the front panel is backlit by the light source (Gamble Col 21 lines 34-46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Leis, Ringer, and Wicker to incorporate the backlighting system as taught by Gamble based on the motivation to enhance the visibility of the warning message in adverse driving conditions.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leis in view of Ringer, and in view of Wicker, as applied in claim 13, and in further view of Jefferson.
Regarding Claim 20, the prior art combination remains as applied above in claim 13. The prior art combination does not explicitly teach the sign member is deployed manually.
However, Jefferson discloses that the sign panel requires uncomplicated manual operation for deployment and stowage (Jefferson Col 3 lines 29-30). . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the prior art combination to incorporate the manual deployment mechanism as taught by Jefferson. The motivation for this combination would be to provide a simple and reliable backup method in the case of a system failure and improving the systems usability with multiple methods of operation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 9-16, filed 10/24/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 13 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the cited reference to Leis fails to teach the limitation of “the actuator assembly comprising…a power source…” where the “actuator assembly [is] mounted within the casing”. Specifically, Applicant assets that because the power source of the claimed invention requires an internal power source such as a battery, the prior art of record that teaches a vehicle battery power source externally mounted fails to disclose the limitation at issue. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is noted in the Applicant’s specification, Page 6 lines 8-17, the term “power source” is explicitly defined to “be connected to an external power source 11, such as the battery of the vehicle and/or an electrical terminal that allows the present invention to send electrical power to the microcontroller 8 and other electrical components.” Accordingly, contrary to the Applicant’s assertion, the term “power source” is not limited to a self-contained battery mounted in the casing, but is also interpreted to encompass electrical terminals housed within the device that receive power from an external source outside the casing and actuator assembly. Leis discloses a single electrical control line from the vehicle connected to the power terminal of the flasher/assembly to provide power to the components within the housing/casing (Col 6 lines 22-24). The internal electrical terminals and connections within the housing/casing of Leis provide the equivalent of an “electrical terminal that allows electrical power to the electrical components.” Leis teaches the limitations at issue. The rejection of claims 1 and 13 are maintained.
Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to house a power source and wireless communication module within the sign device because Leis nor Ringer provides motivation for a self-contained, fully wireless sign device and that both references disclose devices primarily for school buses and are hard-wired into the vehicle’s electrical system due to regulations. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s argument relies on the premise that the power source must be a self-contained battery to make the device portable and is further defined in the Applicant’s specification, Page 6 lines 8-17, to encompass electrical terminals housed within the device that receives power from an external source. As discussed in the previous argument, Leis discloses a single electrical control line from the vehicle connected to the power terminal of the flasher to provide power to the components within the housing (Col 6 lines 22-24). Ringer discloses a safety sign device that includes a controller with a wireless transceiver to permit remote actuation of the motor (Col 6 lines 52-58) and provides the motivation to incorporate the wireless communication into a vehicle sign device to enable remote actuation. Ringer teaches the benefit of wireless control in the same field of endeavor of vehicle safety signs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pneumatic signal of Leis to incorporate the wireless control of Ringer to provide the benefit of remote operations. Furthermore, the claims are directed to a “Vehicle sign device” and is not limited to a portable device or a specific vehicle type. The claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that the prior art combination fails to teach “the sensor and the dash camera being laterally integrated onto the mounting member.” Applicant states that Wicker discloses a sensor that serves a different purpose than the present invention and that the prior arts does not provide motivation for teaching a rear-facing dash camera. 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). As was specifically stated in the nonfinal office action mailed 10/01/2025, Ringer was used to teach the safety sign device that includes an image sensor device and processing circuitry/memory where the safety sign device is laterally integrated to the side of the vehicle (Ringer Col 5 lines 33-43, Col 6 lines 18-20). Wicker was used to teach a current sensor that detects an object or child in the path of the crossing arm (Wicker Col 8 lines 43-65). The claims are directed to “the sensor and the dash camera being laterally integrated onto the mounting member”, thus the combination still teaches the features for which it was cited.
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 EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON whose telephone number is (571)272-4834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON/Examiner, Art Unit 3663 /ANGELA Y ORTIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663