DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response, dated 12/1/258, has been entered.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/2/26 has been entered.
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, 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.
Claims 1, 4, 6-7, 10-11, 13-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buley [US 2015/0158419] in view of Watson [US 5038136].
As to claim 1, Buley discloses a lighting system configured to couple to a vehicle [see figure 3], the lighting system comprising: a light source [135] configured to illuminate a target area in front of the vehicle from above, wherein the lighting system is configured to move between a retracted position and an extended position [see paragraph 18].
Buley fails to explicitly disclose wherein when in the extended position, the light source is positioned at or about a height corresponding to a top of the vehicle.
Watson teaches orienting such a warning sign and light source at or about a height corresponding to a top of the vehicle was well known [see Watson, figure 3].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to implement the height of the light source mount of Watson in order to provide for more light dispersion [see Buley, paragraph 24].
As to claim 4, Buley discloses the lighting system of Claim 1, wherein the lighting system is coupled to a front bumper of the vehicle [see figure 3, note that in Watson such a coupling would be indirect as both are integral with the bus itself].
As to claim 6, Buley discloses the lighting system of Claim 1, wherein the vehicle is a bus [see figure 3].
As to claim 7, Buley discloses the lighting system of Claim 1, further comprising an actuator configured to control movement of the lighting system [110, figure 1].
As to claim 10, Buley discloses the lighting system of Claim 1, further comprising: a support arm [130] configured to position the light source; and a support beam [120] configured to brace the support arm.
As to claim 11, Buley discloses the lighting system of Claim 10, further comprising a rail configured to guide the support arm between the extended position and the retracted position [111].
As to claim 13, Buley discloses the lighting system of Claim 1, further comprising: two support arms configured to position the light source [portions above and below 110, figure 1]; and two support beams configured to brace each support arm of the two support arms [portions where support arms join 120].
As to claim 14, Buley discloses a method of preventing accidents comprising: positioning a light source above a target area by extending the light structure according to Claim 1 to an extended position outward from a vehicle [see figure 3]; and illuminating the target area from above with the light source [see figure 3]. Buley fails to explicitly disclose turning off headlights of the vehicle as part of the process. It would have been obvious to implement the lighting unit in the configuration as shown in figure 3, either with the lights on or the lights off. One having ordinary skill would recognize the benefits of implementing the light source according to figure 3 with the headlights off, in order to reduce glare into pedestrians’ eyes as they cross in front of the bus [see Buley, paragraph 24].
As to claim 16, Buley discloses the method of Claim 14, wherein positioning the light source comprises: actuating an actuator to control the lighting system [110].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buley in view of Watson and Aretuo [US 2010/0265058].
As to claim 5, Buley fails to explicitly disclose wherein the lighting system is coupled to a roof of the vehicle. Aretuo teaches implementing retractable light sources on the roof of vehicles was well known [see figure 4]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement the roof mounted light source as taught by Aretuo on the roof of a bus as taught by Buley, in order to illuminate more ground area [see Buley, paragraph 24].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buley in view of Watson and Brulo [US 2022/0134946]
As to claim 8, Buley fails to explicitly disclose wherein the light source comprises a strip of light-emitting diodes (LEDs). Brulo teaches the use of a plurality of LEDs for a light source was well known [see Brulo, paragraph 2]. It would have been obvious to use LEDs in order to reduce the amount of power generated and heat produced by the light source [see Buley, paragraph 24].
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buley in view of Watson and Curchod [US 5255666].
As to claim 9, Buley fails to explicitly disclose a first flange located on a first side of the light source; and a second flange located on a second side, opposite the first side of the light source, wherein the first flange and the second flange are configured to direct light from the light source towards the target area. Curchod teaches that implementing light sources with reflectors which are comprised of two flanges on opposite sides which direct light to a target area was well known [see 24, figure 2]. It would have been obvious to implement the luminaire and light directing reflectors of Curchod with the lighting unit taught by Buley, in order to increase optical efficiency and light directionality [see Buley, paragraph 24].
As to claim 15, Buley fails to explicitly disclose blocking light from the light source with a first flange located on a first side of the light source and a second flange located on a second side of the light source. Curchod teaches that implementing light sources with reflectors which are comprised of two flanges on opposite sides which direct light to a target area was well known [see 24, figure 2]. It would have been obvious to implement the luminaire and light directing reflectors of Curchod with the lighting unit taught by Buley, in order to increase optical efficiency and light directionality [see Buley, paragraph 24].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 are allowable over the prior art of record.
Claims 2-3, 12, and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: these claims recite elements which are not disclosed or taught by the prior art of record. Examiner notes claims 2 and 3 are examined and interpreted under means plus language, and further notes the only definition of the means as recited in claim 2 is in claim 3, and as such the allowable subject matter of claim 2 will necessarily include the elements and limitations of claim 3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 7/2/26 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYON GYLLSTROM whose telephone number is (571)270-1498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Jong-Suk Lee can be reached at 571-272-7044. 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.
/BRYON T GYLLSTROM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights