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 .
Summary
This communication is a First Office Action Non-Final Rejection on the merits.
Claims 11 – 24 are currently pending and considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “near” in claim 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear how close is near the taillight is as the term is not clearly defined in any of disclosure of the current application. Clarification is required.
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 11 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horn (US 2021/0188270 A1).
As per claim 11, Horn teaches the limitations of:
a saddle-ride type motorcycle (See at least paragraph 7; powered wheeled assembly including a motorcycle assembly for operation by rider, also referred to as a user. The rider may operate the motorcycle to travel along an intended path on a surface.) comprising:
a dashboard comprising a monitor (See at least paragraph 58; the fairing assembly 20 may further include a selectable display 160, such as a Ride Command® video display sold by Polaris Industries Inc. A selection may be made such that the display 160 may selectively display various information to the rider 200 (FIG. 4) whom is seated in the seat 28 in a selected manner. It is understood by one skilled in the art that the display 160 may be incorporated in various components of the motorcycle 10 alternatively or in addition to the display 160 in the fairing, for example rearview mirrors. The display 160 is mounted, generally, to allow the rider 200 to view the display device 160 without turning a head of the rider 200. That is, the rider 200 need not turn the rider's head from a direction forward of the motorcycle 10. The selection for information to display with the display 160 may be manually, automatically, or with a combination of automatic and manual input.);
a radar device comprising at least one sensor and at least one controller (See at least paragraph 59, 76 and 81; the various systems, such as cameras, sensors (e.g. radar, lidar, lean) may be connected to selected systems of the vehicle in an appropriate manner. … the motorcycle 10 may further include or be installed to include a rear facing radar assembly. With reference to FIG. 1, FIG. 4, and FIG. 5, a radar assembly 250 may be installed into the saddlebag 140. It is understood that the radar assembly 250 may include two radar assemblies, one installed on either side of the motorcycle 10, such as the radar assembly 250 in the saddlebag 140 and a second radar assembly 252 in a second saddlebag assembly 141. The two radar assemblies 250, 252 may be substantially identical other than identified as left and right. Similarly, the saddlebag assemblies 140, 141 may be substantially identical other than being a left and right as well. Accordingly, the discussion herein of the radar assembly 250 and the saddlebag 140 will relate to either or both of the saddlebag assemblies 140, 141, and radar assemblies 250, 252, respectively unless specifically identified otherwise. … It is understood that the radar module 250 may also only transmit a signal regarding the received radar signal reflected from an exterior vehicle in a surrounding environment. The selected processing, as discussed above and further herein, may be performed by additional or alternative onboard processors, such as processor system within or connected to the engine control unit (ECU) 272.);
wherein the at least one controller is connected, directly or indirectly, to the monitor and is configured to:
detect, for each side of the motorcycle, presence of a vehicle near or approaching in at least a first zone characteristic of a blind spot and in at least a second zone adjacent to and rear to the first zone with respect to a direction of travel of the motorcycle, based on a signal sent by the at least one sensor (See at least paragraph 85, 88 – 89 and 107; A determination of whether the radar has detected an oncoming car is based upon a sensed rate or approach to the motorcycle 10 and/or time calculated to possible impact. For example, the radar assembly 250 may sense a vehicle approaching the motorcycle at a relative speed of 20 miles per hour (MPH) and that the vehicle is 290 is 60 feet away. Thus, a determination may be made that the vehicle 290 is only about 2 seconds from impact. … Receiving inputs in block 331′ may include the rider 200 activating a rear approach detection system on the motorcycle 10 and/or initiating or starting the motorcycle 10. The process may then begin an ongoing determination in determining from block 332′ of whether the radar sensor detects an approaching car or vehicle. As discussed above, the determination of whether the radar detects an oncoming vehicle may be based upon a speed of a vehicle approaching the motorcycle 10, a distance of a vehicle to the motorcycle 10, or a possible time of impact or contact based upon a detected speed and distance of the vehicle. If no vehicle is detected, a NO path 334′ may be followed to turn off display of the rear camera in block 314′. Thereafter the process may reinitiate and a continued detection or determination of whether the radar is detecting a car in block 322′ may occur. If a car is detected in block 332′ a YES path 338 prime may be followed to turn a display on in block 310′. Accordingly, the display 160 may display a view of a rear camera, such as the rear camera 170c when a radar detects an oncoming car in block 332′. … the rider 200 may operate turn signal indicators and the cameras 170 and/or the radar assemblies 250, 252, 350 may operate to sense or determine whether there are vehicles or obstacles in the direction indicated by the rider 200 by operation of the turn signal indicator. The feedback systems, such as the haptic feedback motors 450 may then provide the appropriate indication to the rider or feedback to the rider 200 if other vehicles or obstacles are sensed in the right or left areas, particularly in the blind spot areas of the motorcycle 10.);
determine an illumination of at least one predetermined portion of the monitor when it detects the presence of the vehicle in one of the first or second zones (See at least paragraph 107 – 108; as discussed above, the rider 200 may operate turn signal indicators and the cameras 170 and/or the radar assemblies 250, 252, 350 may operate to sense or determine whether there are vehicles or obstacles in the direction indicated by the rider 200 by operation of the turn signal indicator. The feedback systems, such as the haptic feedback motors 450 may then provide the appropriate indication to the rider or feedback to the rider 200 if other vehicles or obstacles are sensed in the right or left areas, particularly in the blind spot areas of the motorcycle 10. … the determination may be made based upon the signal from various assemblies, such as the radar assemblies, and feedback may be provided to the rider such as hepatic feedback and/or display on the display device 160); and
estimate a potential presence of the vehicle in a third zone adjacent to and in front of the first zone with respect to the direction of travel of the motorcycle, wherein the illumination of the predetermined portion or of a further predetermined portion of the monitor with respect to the predetermined portion is determined, directly or indirectly, based on a speed of the vehicle (See at least paragraph 115 and 122; Detection of an approaching vehicle may include various determinations, such as noted above including relative speed of the sensed external object or vehicle, rate of change in speed, distance, etc. Detection or a positive determination of a detected vehicle may be that the speed of the external vehicle, such as object 290 (FIG. 4) is greater than 5 miles per hour faster than the motorcycle. Alternatively or additionally, if it is determined that the external vehicle is less than a certain time away, such as less than 2 seconds away given a speed, distance, and/or change in speed. … the motorcycle 10 may include a sensor module on both a right and a left side, such as a first module 600 on the left side and a second module 600a on the right side. A central axis 612 may be formed between motorcycle 10 and the surface 606, such as a substantially perpendicular angle 614 when the motorcycle 10 is upright. It is understood that a plurality of sensors may be positioned on either side, such as a plurality of sensors, which may assist in providing additional information or feedback regarding the sensed signals.).
As per claim 12, Horn teaches the limitation of:
wherein the speed of the vehicle is detected at an entry thereof into the third zone (See at least paragraph 115 and 122).
As per claim 13, Horn teaches the limitation of:
wherein the controller is directly connected to the monitor and directly determines the illumination of the at least one predetermined portion of the monitor as a result of the presence of the vehicle in one of the first, second, or third zones (See at least paragraph 101).
As per claim 14, Horn teaches the limitation of:
wherein the motorcycle comprises a control unit of the monitor and a communication bus connecting the controller to the control unit, the communication bus transferring to the control unit an alarm signal generated by the controller and characteristic of the presence of the vehicle in one of the first or second zones, wherein the control unit controls the illumination of the at least one portion of the monitor based on the alarm signal (See at least paragraph 104 – 105 and 107).
As per claim 15, Horn teaches the limitation of:
wherein: at least one left portion of the monitor is illuminated when the presence of the vehicle is detected in the first zone or in the second zone, wherein the first and second zones are considered to be on a left side of the motorcycle, and wherein at least one right portion of the monitor is illuminated when the presence of the vehicle is detected in the first zone or in the second zone, wherein the first and second zones are considered to be on a right side of the motorcycle (See at least paragraph 104 – 105 and 107).
As per claim 16, Horn teaches the limitation of:
wherein the illumination of the at least one predetermined portion of the monitor is fixed (See at least paragraph 105).
As per claim 17, Horn teaches the limitation of:
wherein the illumination of the at least one predetermined portion of the monitor is intermittent (See at least paragraph 104).
As per claim 18, Horn teaches the limitation of:
wherein the illumination further has a variable frequency dependent on the zone in which the vehicle is detected (See at least paragraph 105).
As per claim 19, Horn teaches the limitation of:
wherein the illumination of the at least one predetermined portion of the monitor is instantaneous or gradual, dependent on the zone in which the vehicle is detected (See at least paragraph 104 – 105 and 107).
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.
Claims 20 – 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horn.
As per claim 20, Horn teaches the limitation of:
Different color used for the warning lights for the rider (See at least paragraph 101) and radar device detecting the presence of the vehicle in the first zone and detecting the presence of the vehicle in the second zone (See rejections above), but is silent regarding the limitation of:
“wherein the at least one predetermined portion of the monitor is illuminated with a first color when the radar device detects the presence of the vehicle in the first zone and with a second color, different from the first color, when the radar device detects the presence of the vehicle in the second zone.”
The Examiner notes, “wherein the at least one predetermined portion of the monitor is illuminated with a first color when the radar device detects the presence of the vehicle in the first zone and with a second color, different from the first color, when the radar device detects the presence of the vehicle in the second zone,” does not modify the operation of Horn's method and system, and to have modified the method and system of Horn to have included “wherein the at least one predetermined portion of the monitor is illuminated with a first color when the radar device detects the presence of the vehicle in the first zone and with a second color, different from the first color, when the radar device detects the presence of the vehicle in the second zone,” would have been obvious to the skilled artisan because the inclusion of such step would have been an obvious matter of design choice in light of the method and system already discloses by Horn. Such modification would not have otherwise affected the method and system of Horn and would have merely represented one of numerous steps or elements that the skilled artisan would have found obvious for the purposes already disclosed by Horn. Additionally, applicant has not persuasively demonstrated the criticality of providing this step versus the steps discloses by Horn.
As per claim 21, Horn teaches the limitation of:
Different color used for the warning lights for the rider (See at least paragraph 101) and radar device detecting the presence of the vehicle in the first zone and detecting the presence of the vehicle in the second zone (See rejections above), but is silent regarding the limitation of:
wherein depending on a distance of the vehicle from the motorcycle, the controller is configured to vary an illuminating surface, the color and/or an intermittence of the at least one predetermined portion of the monitor.
The Examiner notes, “wherein depending on a distance of the vehicle from the motorcycle, the controller is configured to vary an illuminating surface, the color and/or an intermittence of the at least one predetermined portion of the monitor,” does not modify the operation of Horn's method and system, and to have modified the method and system of Horn to have included “wherein depending on a distance of the vehicle from the motorcycle, the controller is configured to vary an illuminating surface, the color and/or an intermittence of the at least one predetermined portion of the monitor,” would have been obvious to the skilled artisan because the inclusion of such step would have been an obvious matter of design choice in light of the method and system already discloses by Horn. Such modification would not have otherwise affected the method and system of Horn and would have merely represented one of numerous steps or elements that the skilled artisan would have found obvious for the purposes already disclosed by Horn. Additionally, applicant has not persuasively demonstrated the criticality of providing this step versus the steps discloses by Horn.
As per claim 22, Horn teaches the limitation of: radar element and a sensor on a centerline plane of the motorcycle and at a rear end thereof (See at least figure 4), but does not explicitly teach that the sensor element is the radar as Horn’s sensor in the centerline plane of the motorcycle and at a rear end thereof is a camera sensor. However, Horn teaches radar in figure 4 which is attached to saddlebag. The Examiner notes, “wherein the sensor element is positioned on a centerline plane of the motorcycle and at a rear end thereof” does not modify the operation of Horn's method and system, and to have modified the method and system of Horn to have included “wherein the sensor element is positioned on a centerline plane of the motorcycle and at a rear end thereof” would have been obvious to the skilled artisan because the inclusion of such step would have been an obvious matter of design choice in light of the method and system already discloses by Horn. Such modification would not have otherwise affected the method and system of Horn and would have merely represented one of numerous steps or elements that the skilled artisan would have found obvious for the purposes already disclosed by Horn. Additionally, applicant has not persuasively demonstrated the criticality of providing this step versus the steps discloses by Horn.
As per claim 23, Horn teaches the limitation of:
wherein the sensor element is positioned near a taillight (See at least figure 4).
As per claim 24, Horn teaches the limitation of: monitors that illuminates with warning signal when the radar sensor detects objects in blind spot or approaching to the motorcycle (See the rejections above), but does not explicitly teach “wherein the predetermined portion of the monitor is arranged adjacent to an edge of the monitor.” The Examiner notes, “wherein the predetermined portion of the monitor is arranged adjacent to an edge of the monitor,” does not modify the operation of Horn's method and system, and to have modified the method and system of Horn to have included “wherein the predetermined portion of the monitor is arranged adjacent to an edge of the monitor,” would have been obvious to the skilled artisan because the inclusion of such step would have been an obvious matter of design choice in light of the method and system already discloses by Horn. Such modification would not have otherwise affected the method and system of Horn and would have merely represented one of numerous steps or elements that the skilled artisan would have found obvious for the purposes already disclosed by Horn. Additionally, applicant has not persuasively demonstrated the criticality of providing this step versus the steps discloses by Horn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bell et al. (US 6400308 B1) discloses high performance vehicle radar system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IG T AN whose telephone number is (571)270-5110. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
IG T AN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/IG T AN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662