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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 18-27 have been examined and claims 1-17 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 18-27 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.
Applicant's arguments filed June 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they also are not persuasive. The following are Applicant’s arguments and Examiner’s responses:
In regards to Double Patenting Rejection, Applicant argues the claims of the subject application are patentably distinct from eh cited patent. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation “a vehicle horn system comprising a steering wheel including an actuation area, the actuation area configured to produce a signal upon actuation of the actuation area” as recited in claim 1 would encompass the newly amended claim subject “so as to be within reach of a hand or finger of a driver of the vehicle”.
Applicant argues: The Office Action relies on Graves for the actuation area. However, the Action only relies on Graves for a brake pedal as an actuation area. As amended, the claims recite that the actuation area is positioned within an interior of a vehicle so as to be within reach of a hand or finger of a driver of the vehicle. Thus, Graves does not show or describe at least one element of the claims.
The present application provides a warning system that would be used to warn a pedestrian of an oncoming car. By the time the brakes were engaged, it would likely be far too late for any such a warning. Thus, Graves solution of a brake pedal as would defeat a purpose of the present invention, and would not be relied upon by a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) seeking to solve the problem of pedestrians looking at their cell phones and unaware of oncoming surrounding traffic.
Graves very specifically shows and describes a brake deterioration warning- that is, a warning that a vehicle's brakes are deteriorating. This is a completely different issue than the one addressed by the present claims. The present invention is not directed to warning a pedestrian that brakes may be failing on a vehicle. Rather, the present claims recite a way for a driver to proactively use a hand or finger to send a signal to alert a pedestrian who is using their cell phone to be aware of the oncoming vehicle. Graves says nothing about this.
Graves further does not provide any indication or description of how a warning is provided to a pedestrian as well, only reciting a generic "warning." Egly does not provide any of the missing elements in Graves. There is simply no situation indicated in Egly where a driver of a vehicle proactively uses a hand or finger to actuate and actuation area within hand or finger reach to send a signal. Egly discusses passive events, or hazardous road conditions.
There would be no reason for a POSITA to completely rearrange or reconfigure either Graves or Egly, absent the improper application of hindsight in view of the present disclosure. There is further no motivation to combine the references relied upon in the Action. ‘
Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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., a way for a driver to proactively use a hand or finger to send a signal to alert a pedestrian who is using their cell phone to be aware of the oncoming vehicle) 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). The claim merely recites the actuation area is “position” in an interior of the vehicle and that as to be “within reached of a hand or finger of a driver of the vehicle” wherein the actuation area configures to produce a signal upon actuation of the actuation area. However, the claim does “a way for a driver to proactively use a hand or finger to send a signal”. Having a structural arrangement that positioning the actuation area within reach of a hand or finger of a driver is different from a driver to proactively use a hand or finger to send a signal. For example, the driver could still use a hand or finger to reach the actuation area to actuation area (for example, reaching to the brake pedal of the vehicle when the driver is stepped out of the vehicle and bend down to using hand or finger reach the brake pedal). This is one of the scenarios that actuation area position so as to be within reach of hand and finger. Therefore, the structure or operational arrangement of Graces does not teach away from the newly amended claim subject matter by using the brake pedal as actuation area.
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 invention of Graves would still able to be used to warn a pedestrian of an oncoming car. The claim does not require the specific timing of warning generation, therefore the argument “By the time the brakes were engaged, it would likely be far too late for any such a warning.” is irrelevant. The argument “Graves further does not provide any indication or description of how a warning is provided to a pedestrian as well, only reciting a generic "warning." is shown by Egly that a mobile application is combined to provide a warning alert to a user. The combination in view of Egly does not require to having “a driver of a vehicle proactively uses a hand or finger to actuate and actuation area within hand or finger reach to send a signal.” as stated above.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the changes made to the claims by applicant via amendment. The rejections of claim 20 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 112 from previous office action have been overcome as a result of amendment and remarks.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 18-21,23-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3,7-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,993,204. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the narrower claims 1-3,7-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,993,204 would encompass the broader claims 18-21,23-26 of the current application. Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,993,204 “a vehicle horn system comprising a steering wheel including an actuation area, the actuation area configured to produce a signal upon actuation of the actuation area” as recited in claim 1 would encompass the newly amended claim subject “so as to be within reach of a hand or finger of a driver of the vehicle”.
Current application
U.S. 11,993,204
18
1
29
2
20
3
21
1
23
7
24
7,8
25
9
26
10
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 18-20, 23,25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graves (US 2019/0092308), in view of Egly (US 2013/0187792).
As per claim 18, Graves shows a pedestrian alert system for warning a pedestrian of a vehicle approaching the pedestrian, comprising:
an actuation area (would have been obviously shown by the brake pedal) positioned in an interior of the vehicle (the brake pedal is structured in an interior of the vehicle), so as to be within reach of a hand or finger of a driver of the vehicle (as mentioned in Examiner’s response above: for example, reaching to the brake pedal of the vehicle when the driver is stepped out of the vehicle and bend down to using hand or finger reach the brake pedal),
the actuation area configured to produce a signal (for example, brake event signal; also see Examiner’s response above) upon actuation of the actuation area (engagement and disengagement as well as pressure) (Para 23-25,45-48); and
a mobile device (secondary device 364) configured to provide a warning alert to a user of the mobile device (pedestrian 360) in response to the signal produced upon actuation of the actuation area (Para. 45,53,55), wherein the warning alert is configured to warn the pedestrian of the vehicle approaching the pedestrian (traveling toward the pedestrian; Fig. 1-3).
The invention of Graves does not explicitly mention the mobile device comprising a mobile application.
In the analogous art, Egly shows mobile device comprising a mobile application for alert (Para 45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to include the mobile app of the smartphone as suggest by Egly to the mobile phone of Graves because it would provide application/software feature and additional data processing power for the mobile device such as mobile phone and/or smartphone, thereby increasing the effectiveness of the invention. It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Rather the smartphone app is installed on the mobile device of the driver or pedestrian would be an implementation of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.
As per claim 19, the combined invention meets the limitation of claim and Egly further shows the mobile device comprises a smartphone, and wherein the warning alert comprises a notification on a screen of the smartphone (Para 23,45; Fig)
As per claim 20, the combined invention meets the limitation of claim and Graves further shows the actuation area comprises a pad, button, level, or switch (brake pad/pedal; Para. 45,53,55).
As per claims 23,25,26, they are method claims correspond to claims 18-20; they are therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth.
Claim(s) 18-27is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makke et al. (US 2018/0365993).
As per claim 18, Graves shows a pedestrian alert system for warning a pedestrian of a vehicle approaching the pedestrian (Although the invention of Makke does not explicitly mention warning a pedestrian of a vehicle approaching the pedestrian, however, it shows the warning a pedestrian of a vehicle in approximate/nearby with the pedestrian (Para 30, 34,8-10). In addition, the system includes directional identifier of the vehicle and alert to make the pedestrian aware of the host vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to the transition from outside of range to nearby/proximate between host vehicle and pedestrian and directional identifier would involve the action of vehicle approaching the pedestrian. The specific approaching sequence and method would be an implementation of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.), comprising:
an actuation area (horn button; Para 17,34) positioned in an interior of the vehicle (horn and steering wheel), so as to be within reach of a hand or finger of a driver of the vehicle (horn and wheel as user input; Para 7, 34),
the actuation area configured to produce a signal (Para 16-17) upon actuation of the actuation area (pressing; Para 16-17,34); and
a mobile device (mobile device 310A-310B; Fig. 3; Para 34,40) comprising a mobile application (Para 52-54,56), the mobile application configured to provide a warning alert to a user of the mobile device (Para 40) in response to the signal produced upon actuation of the actuation area (Para. 34,40), wherein the warning alert is configured to warn the pedestrian of the vehicle approaching the pedestrian (see above and Para 16-17,34,40).
As per claim 19, the invention of Makke meets the limitation of claim and Makke further shows the mobile device comprises a smartphone, and wherein the warning alert comprises a notification on a screen of the smartphone (Para 21,38,40; Fig 3).
As per claim 20, the invention of Makke meets the limitation of claim and Makke further shows the actuation area comprises a pad, button, lever, or switch (button; Para 17).
As per claims 23,25,26, they are method claims correspond to claims 18-20; they are therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth.
As per claims 21 and 24, the invention of Makke meets the limitation of claim and Makke further shows a horn, and wherein actuation of the actuation area further actuates the horn (Para 17,34)
As per claim 22 and 27, the invention of Makke meets the limitation of claim and Makke further the mobile device is configured to vibrate in response to the one or more signals (Para 40).
Claim(s) 22, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graves (US 2019/0092308), in view of Egly (US 2013/0187792), further in view of Harrison et al. (US 10,068,473).
As per claim 22 and 27, the combined invention meets the limitation of claim, but does not explicitly mention the mobile device is configured to vibrate in response to the one or more signals.
In the analogous art, Harrison shows the mobile device is configured to vibrate in response to the one or more signals (abstract; col. 2, lines 19-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to include the vibrate to the smartphone as suggest by Harrison to the mobile phone of Graves in view of Egly because it would provide additional sense of alert to mobile phone and/or smartphone, thereby increasing the flexibility of the invention. It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. As stated above, rather the smartphone app is installed on the mobile device of the driver or pedestrian would be an implementation of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.
Claim(s) 21 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graves (US 2019/0092308), in view of Egly (US 2013/0187792), further in view of Makke et al. (US 2018/0365993).
As per claims 21 and 24, the combined invention meets the limitation of claim, but does not explicitly mention a horn, and wherein actuation of the actuation area further actuates the horn.
In the analogous art, Makke shows a horn, and wherein actuation of the actuation area further actuates the horn (Para 17,27,34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to include the horn as suggest by Makke to the brake actuation of Graves in view of Egly because it would provide additional alert condition, thereby increasing the flexibility of the invention. It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The specific type or condition for the actuation area for alert would be an implementation of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOI C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-8547. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00Pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571)272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HOI C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689