DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim status
2. In response to the amendments filed 01/09/2026, claims 1, 2, 8, 10-12, 18 and 20 were amended, claim 9 and 19 were canceled and new claims 21-22 were added. Therefore, claims 1-8, 10-18 and 20-22 are currently pending for examination.
Double Patenting
3. 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(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-l.jsp.
4. Claims 1-8, 10-18 and 20-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14 and 16 of US Patent No. 11,511,663. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because “determining that one or more vehicles are within a viewing distance of one or more light emitting devices of the vehicle; and after (a) detecting the amount of the force applied to the brake of the vehicle and (b) determining that the one or more vehicles are within the viewing distance of the one or more light emitting devices of the vehicle, illuminate the one or more light emitting device”, “capture, by a sensor, proximity data of one or more other vehicles; and determine, based on the proximity data, whether the one or more other vehicles are within the viewing distance of the one or more light emitting devices of the vehicle”, “the proximity data of the one or more other vehicles is captured only after the amount of the force applied to the brake of the vehicle is detected”, “the one or more light emitting devices are brake lights”, “the manner indicative of the amount of the force detected to have been applied to the brake of the vehicle comprises illuminating the one or more light emitting devices at a frequency corresponding to the amount of the force detected to have been applied to the brake of the vehicle”, “the manner indicative of the amount of the force detected to have been applied to the brake of the vehicle comprises illuminating the one or more light emitting devices at a brightness level corresponding to the amount of the force detected to have been applied to the brake of the vehicle” and “the braking rationale comprises at least one of one or more alphanumeric characters, one or more symbols, one or more images, one or more video images, one or more audio bytes, an audio representation, or a visual representation” are conventional prior art features (see analysis in the body of the art rejection) and the use of such features in 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14 and 16 of US Patent No. 11,511,663 would have been obvious and would not have involved a patentable invention.
5. Claims 1-8, 10-18 and 20-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 8-12 and 15-19 of US Patent No. 11,752,930. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because “determining that one or more vehicles are within a viewing distance of one or more light emitting devices of the vehicle; and after (a) detecting the amount of the force applied to the brake of the vehicle and (b) determining that the one or more vehicles are within the viewing distance of the one or more light emitting devices of the vehicle, illuminate the one or more light emitting device”, “capture, by a sensor, proximity data of one or more other vehicles; and determine, based on the proximity data, whether the one or more other vehicles are within the viewing distance of the one or more light emitting devices of the vehicle”, “the proximity data of the one or more other vehicles is captured only after the amount of the force applied to the brake of the vehicle is detected”, “the one or more light emitting devices are brake lights”, “the manner indicative of the amount of the force detected to have been applied to the brake of the vehicle comprises illuminating the one or more light emitting devices at a frequency corresponding to the amount of the force detected to have been applied to the brake of the vehicle” and “the manner indicative of the amount of the force detected to have been applied to the brake of the vehicle comprises illuminating the one or more light emitting devices at a brightness level corresponding to the amount of the force detected to have been applied to the brake of the vehicle” are conventional prior art features (see analysis in the body of the art rejection) and the use of such features in claims 1-5, 8-12 and 15-19of US Patent No. 11,752,930 would have been obvious and would not have involved a patentable invention.
6. Claims 1-8, 10-18 and 20-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-8, 11-15 and 17-19 of US Patent No. 12,090,918. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because “determining that one or more vehicles are within a viewing distance of one or more light emitting devices of the vehicle; and after (a) detecting the amount of the force applied to the brake of the vehicle and (b) determining that the one or more vehicles are within the viewing distance of the one or more light emitting devices of the vehicle, illuminate the one or more light emitting device”, “capture, by a sensor, proximity data of one or more other vehicles; and determine, based on the proximity data, whether the one or more other vehicles are within the viewing distance of the one or more light emitting devices of the vehicle”, “the proximity data of the one or more other vehicles is captured only after the amount of the force applied to the brake of the vehicle is detected”, “the one or more light emitting devices are brake lights”, “the manner indicative of the amount of the force detected to have been applied to the brake of the vehicle comprises illuminating the one or more light emitting devices at a frequency corresponding to the amount of the force detected to have been applied to the brake of the vehicle” and “the manner indicative of the amount of the force detected to have been applied to the brake of the vehicle comprises illuminating the one or more light emitting devices at a brightness level corresponding to the amount of the force detected to have been applied to the brake of the vehicle” are conventional prior art features (see analysis in the body of the art rejection) and the use of such features in claims 1, 4-8, 11-15 and 17-19 of US Patent No. 12,090,918 would have been obvious and would not have involved a patentable invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 11-12, 14-16 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding (US 2017/0190283) in view of Okpysh et al. (Okpysh; US 2007/0241874).
For claim 1, Ding discloses a system comprising:
one or more memories comprising computer instructions [E.g. 0026: a table of such associations may be pre-configured in memory storage accessible to processor 110 and can be retrieved by display parameter determination component 306 for determining a value of the parameter. For example, associations between display brightness and corresponding brake force value(s) can be stored in the memory storage and upon receiving a particular brake force value from the brake force determination component 304]; and
one or more processors [Fig. 3: processor 110] coupled to the one or more memories and, when the computer instructions are run on the one or more processors [E.g. 0029, 0022-0023, 0034], the one or more processors are configured to:
detect an amount of a force applied to a brake of a vehicle [E.g. 0004: a pedal force sensor capable of determining an amount of brake force applied to a brake pedal can be employed. In those embodiments, the pedal force sensor can be attached to the top of the brake pedal in the driving apparatus. The pedal force sensor at the brake pedal can measure and record applied brake forces. A degree of the applied brake force relative to a maximum brake force that can be applied to the brake pedal can be determined]; and
after detecting the force applied to the brake of the vehicle, illuminate one or more light emitting devices of the vehicle in a manner indicative of the amount of the force detected to have been applied to the brake of the vehicle [E.g. 0004: The degree of the applied brake force can be dynamically and visually displayed so that the operator of trailing driving apparatus can be aware of how strong the brake force applied by the driving apparatus in front. In those embodiments, the dynamic display of the applied brake force can include altering the illumination intensity, illumination area, frequency, and/or any other illumination parameters according to the brake force applied by the driving apparatus. In some embodiments, the dynamic display of the brake force is achieved through one or more rearward facing OLED lamps mounted at the back of the driving apparatus, 0029: a text sign such as 408 can also be displayed when the degree of brake force applied to the brake pedal 112 exceeds a threshold. The text sign 408 can give the operators of driving apparatus trailing the driving apparatus 100 a clear warning to perform the suggested action immediately (e.g., slow down) due to the degree of brake force applied by the operator of driving apparatus 100, 0022-0023, 0034].
Ding fails to expressly disclose determining that one or more vehicles are within a viewing distance of one or more light emitting devices of the vehicle; and after (a) detecting the amount of the force applied to the brake of the vehicle and (b) determining that the one or more vehicles are within the viewing distance of the one or more light emitting devices of the vehicle, illuminate the one or more light emitting device.
However, as shown by Okpysh, it was well known in the art of vehicles to determining that one or more vehicles are within a viewing distance of one or more light emitting devices of the vehicle; and after (a) detecting the amount of the force applied to the brake of the vehicle and (b) determining that the one or more vehicles are within the viewing distance of the one or more light emitting devices of the vehicle, illuminate the one or more light emitting device [E.g. 0019-0022, 0047, 0064, 0100-0101, 0014, 0017].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicles before
the effective filling date of the claimed invention modify Ding with the teaching of Okpysh in order to provide drivers in following vehicle with more information about the vehicle in front so that drivers of the following vehicles can be more prepared to stop and/or slow down when needed and thereby increase the overall safety on the road.
For claim 2, Okpysh further teaches wherein: when the computer instructions are run on the one or more processors, the one or more processors are further configured to: capture, by a sensor, proximity data of one or more other vehicles; and determine, based on the proximity data, whether the one or more other vehicles are within the viewing distance of the one or more light emitting devices of the vehicle [E.g. 0019-0022, 0047].
For claim 4, Ding discloses wherein the one or more light emitting devices are brake lights [E.g. 0027: FIG. 4 illustrates some examples of such dynamic display of the brake force. As shown, driving apparatus 100 may have one or more rearward display as brake light(s) or brake lamp(s) 400. In some embodiments, the brake light 400 is an OLED light such that various display aspects of the brake light 400 such as brightness, illumination area, text displayed, and so on can be controlled. As shown, in some embodiments, the display of brake force applied to brake pedal 112 on the brake light 400 can be display in various display forms 402 as shown. In some embodiments, the brake light 400 can display slide bar 402a such that the slider portion of the display 402a is proportional to the brake force applied to the brake pedal 112. As illustrated in this example, the slider portion of 402a can slide further to the right as the brake force applied to the brake pedal 112 increases].
For claim 5, Ding discloses wherein the manner indicative of the amount of the force detected to have been applied to the brake of the vehicle comprises illuminating the one or more light emitting devices at a frequency corresponding to the amount of the force detected to have been applied to the brake of the vehicle [E.g. 0004: the dynamic display of the applied brake force can include altering the illumination intensity, illumination area, frequency, and/or any other illumination parameters according to the brake force applied by the driving apparatus].
For claim 6, Ding discloses wherein the manner indicative of the amount of the force detected to have been applied to the brake of the vehicle comprises illuminating the one or more light emitting devices at a brightness level corresponding to the amount of the force detected to have been applied to the brake of the vehicle [E.g. 0026: The display parameter determination component 306 can be configured to determine values of one or more parameters for controlling a display of the brake force determined by the brake force determination component 304. The parameters determined by the display parameter determination component 306 may include illumination brightness, illumination area, illumination frequency, illumination color, illumination style and/or any other parameters for displaying the brake force. In implementations, the value of a particular parameter, for example, the brightness, may be determined based on a predetermined association between the value of the brake force determined by brake force determination component 304 and the value of a brightness parameter. For example, a table of such associations may be pre-configured in memory storage accessible to processor 110 and can be retrieved by display parameter determination component 306 for determining a value of the parameter. For example, associations between display brightness and corresponding brake force value(s) can be stored in the memory storage and upon receiving a particular brake force value from the brake force determination component 304].
For claim 11, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 1.
For claim 12, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 2.
For claim 14, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 4.
For claim 15, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 5.
For claim 16, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 6.
For claim 21, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 1.
For claim 22, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 2.
8. Claims 3 and 13 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding in view of Okpysh and further in view of Hernandez (US 2018/0304869).
For claim 3, Ding in view of Okpysh fails to expressly disclose wherein the proximity data of the one or more other vehicles is captured only after the amount of the force applied to the brake of the vehicle is detected.
However, as shown by Hernandez, it was well known in the art of vehicles to include proximity data of one or more other vehicles is captured only after amount of force applied to a brake of the vehicle is detected [E.g. 0035, 0039, 0048, 0058; Fig. 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicles before
the effective filling date of the claimed invention modify Ding in view of Okpysh with the teaching of Hernandez in order to capture data in the environment of the vehicle only when a braking event is detecting so that data about proximate vehicles are only captured when necessary, also it is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predicable results.
For claim 13, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 3.
9. Claims 7-8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding in view of Okpysh and further in view of McEwan (US 2015/0194082).
For claim 7, Ding in view of fails to expressly disclose wherein, when the computer instructions are run on the one or more processors, the one or more processors are further configured to transmit for display on an electronic display, a braking rationale, and wherein the light emitting devices comprises the electronic display.
However, as shown by McEwan, it was well known in the art of vehicles displays to include transmitting for display on an electronic display, a braking rationale, and wherein a light emitting devices comprises the electronic display [E.g. 0052-0055, Fig. 5B].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicles displays before
the effective filling date of the claimed invention modify Ding in view of with the teaching of McEwan in order to provide drivers in following vehicle with more information about why the vehicle in front is stopping or slowing down so that the drivers in the following vehicles can be more prepared to stop when needed and thereby increase the overall safety on the road.
For claim 8, McEwan further teaches wherein at lease one of: the braking rationale comprises at least one of one or more alphanumeric characters [E.g. 0054, Fig. 5B], one or more symbols, one or more images, one or more video images, one or more audio bytes, an audio representation, or a visual representation; or the one or more processors are further configured to: determine a current route of the vehicle [E.g. 0054: In addition to alerting drivers to accidents on the road, the electronic displays 620a, b can alert other drivers of weather-related (e.g., slippery) conditions, road conditions (e.g., dirt, gravel, bumps, potholes, etc.), hazards in the road way, heavy traffic, construction zones, approaching toll plazas, changes in speed limit, school zones, changes in traffic pattern (e.g., detours, lane shifts, etc.), pedestrian traffic, etc. The electronic displays 620a, b may flash or otherwise highlight the traffic-related information in different colors (e.g., yellow) to draw the attention of other drivers, 0057: the electronic displays 620a, b may respond to information or signals broadcast or transmitted by roadway authorities, other municipal agencies, traffic services, navigation systems, and/or other vehicles. It is also contemplated that such traffic-related information can be passed wirelessly (e.g., radio frequency (RF)) from vehicle to vehicle so that the information can be passed along to drivers farther down the road]; retrieve an upcoming traffic indication from a traffic database based at least in part upon the current route [E.g. 0054: In addition to alerting drivers to accidents on the road, the electronic displays 620a, b can alert other drivers of weather-related (e.g., slippery) conditions, road conditions (e.g., dirt, gravel, bumps, potholes, etc.), hazards in the road way, heavy traffic, construction zones, approaching toll plazas, changes in speed limit, school zones, changes in traffic pattern (e.g., detours, lane shifts, etc.), pedestrian traffic, etc. The electronic displays 620a, b may flash or otherwise highlight the traffic-related information in different colors (e.g., yellow) to draw the attention of other drivers, 0057: the electronic displays 620a, b may respond to information or signals broadcast or transmitted by roadway authorities, other municipal agencies, traffic services, navigation systems, and/or other vehicles. It is also contemplated that such traffic-related information can be passed wirelessly (e.g., radio frequency (RF)) from vehicle to vehicle so that the information can be passed along to drivers farther down the road]; and generate the braking rationale based at least in part upon the upcoming traffic indication [E.g. 0054: the information provided by the electronic displays 620a, b can be changed. Although the first electronic display 620a still provides license plate information 10' and the brake lights 30, the first electronic display 620a now displays a "CAUTION" message. Meanwhile, the second electronic display 620b no longer shows the custom messages 20a, b and now displays an "ACCIDENT AHEAD" message. Together the electronic displays 620a, b can display important traffic-related information to drivers behind the vehicle. In addition to alerting drivers to accidents on the road, the electronic displays 620a, b can alert other drivers of weather-related (e.g., slippery) conditions, road conditions (e.g., dirt, gravel, bumps, potholes, etc.), hazards in the road way, heavy traffic, construction zones, approaching toll plazas, changes in speed limit, school zones, changes in traffic pattern (e.g., detours, lane shifts, etc.), pedestrian traffic, etc. The electronic displays 620a, b may flash or otherwise highlight the traffic-related information in different colors (e.g., yellow) to draw the attention of other drivers, 0055: the brake lights 30 may indicate the amount of braking by the vehicle 100c. The electronic displays 620a, b can be used to provide additional alerts in combination with the brake lights 30; furthermore it is implied that the reason for the driver braking “such as hazards in the road way, heavy traffic, construction zones, approaching toll plazas, etc.” will be displayed when the driver is braking].
For claim 17, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 7.
For claim 18, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 8.
10. Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding in view of in view of Okpysh further in view of McEwan and further in view of Lee et al. (Lee; US 2020/0156536).
For claim 10, Ding in view of Okpysh and McEwan fails to expressly disclose wherein at least one of: the braking rationale comprises: a first braking rationale to be displayed for a first time period; and a second braking rationale to be displayed for a second time period; wherein: the first braking rationale is different from the second braking rationale; and the first time period is different from the second time period; or the one or more processors are further configured to: capture a set of digital images corresponding to an upcoming environment of the vehicle; determine a proximate object within the upcoming environment of the vehicle based at least on the set of digital images; and generate the braking rationale based at least on the proximate object.
However, as shown by Lee, it was well known in the art of vehicles to include one or more processors configured to: capture a set of digital images corresponding to an upcoming environment of a vehicle [E.g. 0043, 0012]; determine a proximate object within the upcoming environment of the vehicle based at least on the set of digital images [E.g. 0010-0013, 0029-0031, 0042-0043, 0050]; and generate a braking rationale based at least on the proximate object [E.g. Fig. 6, 0042-0043, 0064-0066, 0074-0076].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicles before
the effective filling date of the claimed invention modify Ding in view of Okpysh and McEwan with the teaching of Lee in order to provide drivers in following vehicle with more information about why the vehicle in front is stopping so that the drivers can be more prepared to stop when needed and thereby increase the safety of the road.
For claim 20, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 10.
Response to Remarks
11. The Applicant's remarks regarding the rejection have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
12. 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.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED BARAKAT whose telephone number is (571)270-3696. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am-5:00PM.
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, 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.
/MOHAMED BARAKAT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689