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 .
The instant application having application No. 18/788,088 for HENRY for “SAFETY SYSTEMS AND METHODS” filed July 29, 2024, which an election of an invention (Group I - Claims 21-31) is submitted April 03, 2026 has been examined.
Drawings
Drawings Figures 1-26H submitted on July 29, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 07, 2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 32-40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention of Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim/s. Applicant elected Group I (Claims 21-31) without traverse the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on April 03, 2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Note:
Applicant should properly identify non-elected claims 32-40 as (“Withdrawn”) in the next official response to this Office Action, In the event, pending claims 21-31 became allowable the non-elected claims 32-40 should be canceled, before a notice of Allowance is issued.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 21-23, 27, 29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the Prior Art of HENRY (U.S. Patent No. 6,529,126 B1) hereafter “Henry”.
As to claim 21, Henry discloses a multiunit subsystem that is integrable into a carrier system that interfaces with and is transportable by a user (safety system used to enhance the safety of motorists, shown in Figure 1 and described in Column 2, line 12-Column 3, line 9 and Column 3, line 39-Column 4, line 9), the multiunit subsystem comprising: a first unit (a first unit (unit 20), shown in Figure 1 and described in Column 2, line 24-64) that is configured to transmit a reference signal for the carrier system (The first unit detects when a braking system of the associated vehicle is activated and when a second safety condition regarding the associated vehicle occurs, and transmits corresponding signals, described in Column 2, line 24-64), the reference signal corresponding to at least one of: a proximity of the first unit to a second unit, and a present operational state of the carrier system (when a braking system of the associated vehicle is activated and when a second safety condition regarding the associated vehicle occurs, described in Column 2, line 24-64); and a second unit (a second unit (unit 22), shown in Figure 1 and described in Column 2, line 24-34) that is configured to communicate with the first unit and, in response to the communication, perform at least one of: interacting with the carrier system (motorcycle 10, shown in Figure 1 and ) to control the carrier system by altering the present operational state of the carrier system (unit 22 then emits a brake light from rear side of helmet 18 to warn following traffic that motorcycle 10 is braking. This provides an additional brake light to enhance safety to motorist 16, shown in Figure 1 and described in Column 2, line 38-48), and altering a corresponding present state of the second unit to correspond to the present state of the carrier system (unit 20 is attached directly to motorcycle 10. Motorist 16 sits atop motorcycle 10 and helmet 18 is worn by motorist 16. Remote unit 22 is attached to a rear surface of helmet 18 and is located at a vertically higher position than tail light 12. When local unit 20 detects an activation of brakes 14 or an occurrence of another safety condition regarding motorcycle 10, local unit 20 transmits a signal to remote unit 22. Remote unit 22 then receives the signal and emits a corresponding output signal. These output signals provide warnings to reduce danger to motorist 16, shown in Figure 1 and described in Column 2, line 12-Column 3, line 9).
As to claim 22, the disclosure of Henry as set forth above in claim 21, further Henry discloses wherein the carrier system is a vehicle, and wherein the present operation state of the vehicle is nonstationary, and wherein the second unit interacts with the vehicle to inhibit movement of the vehicle (unit 20 is attached directly to motorcycle 10. Motorist 16 sits atop motorcycle 10 and helmet 18 is worn by motorist 16. Remote unit 22 is attached to a rear surface of helmet 18 and is located at a vertically higher position than tail light 12. When local unit 20 detects an activation of brakes 14, shown in Figure 1 and described in Column 2, lines 24-39).
As to claim 23, the disclosure of Henry as set forth above in claim 22, further Henry discloses wherein inhibiting movement of the vehicle includes causing the vehicle to perform a braking operation (foot pedal brake 14b is a standard motorcycle foot operated pedal brake. An operation of brakes 14 refers to an operation of either hand lever brake 14a or foot pedal brake 14b, described in Column 2, lines 17-23).
As to claim 27, the disclosure of Henry as set forth above in claim 22, further Henry discloses wherein the carrier system is a vehicle, and wherein the present operational state of the vehicle is running, and wherein altering the corresponding present state of the second unit includes illuminating a brake light of the second unit to indicate that the vehicle is stationary or decelerating to be stationary.
As to claim 29, the disclosure of Henry as set forth above in claim 21, further Henry discloses wherein the altering the corresponding present state of the second unit to correspond to the present state of the carrier system includes providing an indication of the proximity between the first and second units (“remote unit 22, located within remote unit casing 56, containing radio frequency (RF) receiver 62, decoder 64, proximity detection circuit 66, microcontroller 68, LED display 70, and piezo transducer 72. RF receiver 62, decoder 64, proximity detection circuit 66, microcontroller 68, and piezo transducer 72 are components of internal circuitry 52.” and “RF receiver 62 is connected to and sends encoded signals to decoder 64. Decoder 64 and proximity detection circuit 66 are connected to and send signals to microcontroller 68. Microcontroller 68 is connected to and sends signals to LED display 70 and piezo transducer 72.” and “Microcontroller 68 is programmed to detect and interpret the signals sent from decoder 64 and proximity detection circuit 66. Based on the signal received, microcontroller 68 produces an output signal. If the signal received relates to braking, a deceleration warning, or a proximity warning then a corresponding signal is sent to LED display 70. If the signal relates to tail light 12 being burned out, then a signal is sent to piezo transducer 72.”, described in Column 7, lines 4-24, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. wherein the altering the corresponding present state of the second unit to correspond to the present state of the carrier system includes providing an indication of the proximity between the first and second units]).
As to claim 31, the disclosure of Henry as set forth above in claim 21, further Henry discloses wherein either the first or second units are integrated into the carrier system, and wherein the carrier system is a bicycle (a first unit (unit 20) is attached directly to motorcycle 10, shown in Figure 1 and described in Column 2, line 24-64).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by the Prior Art of HENRY (U.S. Patent No. 6,529,126 B1) hereafter “Henry”.
As to claim 30, the disclosure of Henry as set forth above in claim 29, further having teaching of Henry further disclosing “Proximity detection circuit 66 is a signal sensor that constantly monitors the transmission field strength between local unit 20 and remote unit 22. The purpose of proximity detection circuit 66 is to enhance safety to motorist 16 by providing a warning light to show the location of motorist 16 when motorist 16 is away from motorcycle 10. This is useful in poorly lit conditions when motorist 16 is away from motorcycle 10 and not readily visible to traffic. As proximity detection circuit 66 detects the field strength between local unit 20 and remote unit 22, proximity detection circuit 66 compares the signal to a field strength threshold. The field strength threshold is a field strength parameter, programmed into proximity detection circuit 66, which determines what distance remote unit 22 must be from motorcycle 10 for remote unit 22 to flash a warning light. The transmission field strength between local unit 20 and remote unit 22 diminishes as remote unit 22 moves away from local unit 20. The purpose of the field strength threshold is so that the warning light does not constantly emit while motorist 16 is riding motorcycle 10. As motorist 16, while wearing helmet 18, moves away from motorcycle 10, proximity detection circuit 66 detects the field strength between local unit 20 and remote unit 22 and compares the field strength to the field strength threshold. When the field strength becomes less than the field strength threshold, proximity detection circuit 66 sends a signal to microcontroller 68 that motorist 16 is away from motorcycle 10.”, described in Column 7, lines 34-60, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Henry in order to have wherein the indication facilitates guiding the first and second unit toward each other, the desired feature that is obvious to try and may be achieved thru routine experimentation with expected result without involving any inventive steps.
Claims 24-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by the Prior Art of HENRY (U.S. Patent No. 6,529,126 B1) hereafter “Henry” in view of the Prior Art of CASTRO (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0024639 A1) hereafter “Castro”.
As to claim 24, the disclosure of Henry as set forth above in claim 23, but Henry does not expressly disclose wherein the second unit operates as a remote control for a brake system of the vehicle.
Castro discloses s system comprising: remote control circuit can be designed so that successive pressing of the button causes incremental turning of the motor to drive the brake pad toward the rim of the tire (described in Paragraphs 0077-0078, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. wherein the second unit operates as a remote control for a brake system of the vehicle]).
Thus, given the system of Henry and having the teaching of Castro disclosing
a remote control for a brake system of the vehicle that is also well-known and conventional in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Henry in order to have wherein the second unit operates as a remote control for a brake system of the vehicle, for the obvious advantages providing safety stated by Castro (Paragraph 0002).
As to claim 25, the combination of Henry and Castro as set forth above in claim 24, further the combination of Henry and Castro discloses wherein the vehicle is a pedal-driven vehicle (shown in Figure 1 and described in Column 2, lines 12-16 of Henry and an electronic brake device for use with a wheel of a bicycle includes a housing; a first brake caliper having a first end and a second end that contains a brake pad; and a second brake caliper having a first end and second end that contains a brake pad, described in Paragraph 0007 of Castro).
As to claim 26, the combination of Henry and Castro as set forth above in claim 25, further Castro discloses wherein an amount of braking during the braking operation corresponds to an amount of actuation at the second unit (remote control circuit can be designed so that successive pressing of the button causes incremental turning of the motor to drive the brake pad toward the rim of the tire, described in Paragraph 0077 of Castro).
As to claim 28, the combination of Henry and Castro as set forth above in claim 26, further Henry discloses wherein illuminating the brake light occurs when the vehicle is nonstationary independent of a braking system of the vehicle (output signal is emitted if motorist 16 is away from motorcycle 10. If motorist 16 is wearing helmet 18 while away from motorcycle 10, local unit 22 itself detects this and flashes another warning light to allow others to see motorist 16 while away from motorcycle 10. This reduces danger to motorist 16 in poorly lit locations by providing a visible warning to others of the location of motorist 16, described in Column 2, line 65-Column 3, line 5, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. wherein illuminating the brake light occurs when the vehicle is nonstationary independent of a braking system of the vehicle]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following cited arts are further to show the state of related art.
U.S. Publication No. 2019/0261724 A1 of CHEN et al, discloses a protective wearable system comprises a helmet for providing protection and enhancing safety to a rider on a vehicle. In one embodiment, the helmet comprises a LED display configured to produce visual information to vehicles and pedestrians surrounding the rider. The helmet further comprises a control module and a communication module configured to establish a point-to-multipoint communication group such that the rider can transmit or receive real-time and/or just-in-time information to other members of a riding group. The protective wearable system further comprises one or more illuminated wearables and accessories configured to produce light signals for clearly depicting silhouette of the rider and synchronized to the helmet for making the rider more visible and identifiable to nearby motorists.
U.S. Patent No. 6,097,287 to LU, discloses a vehicle safety system produces a supplemental warning signal when a braking system of an associated vehicle is actuated. The system includes a warning signal coupled to a wire loop and a flux generator adapted to be coupled to the braking system of the vehicle. When the braking system of the vehicle is actuated the flux generator draws current from the vehicle and the flux generator creates flux when the braking system is actuated to power the warning signal.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SISAY YACOB whose telephone number is (571)272-8562. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30-07:00 ET.
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, BRIAN A ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
/SISAY YACOB/ April 17, 2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights