DETAILED ACTION
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 7-11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Polak et al. (US Pub No 2010/0102946).
In regard to claim 1, Polak discloses a vehicle braking awareness system (see the Title and Abstract) comprising:
a pressure sensor assembly (brake pedal sensor 1202, Fig 12) configured to detect a degree of force applied to a braking system of a vehicle (see Paragraph 0027: “After the brakes are applied for a short time, with the minimal pressure required to activate the brake light sensor/switch, the current can be distributed in the form of a series of warning pulses at a frequency lower than the frequency occurring for moderate braking.”; also see Paragraph 0031);
a microcontroller unit (microprocessor 1203) configured to process a real-time data received from the pressure sensor assembly and to determine a brake light pattern based on a braking intensity (see Paragraph 0031: “When the brake pedal is depressed at a moment T.sub.p, the brake pedal sensor/switch 1202 becomes activated and sends an electric pulse to the control unit 1210. As a result of this triggering pulse, the microprocessor 1203 generates a waveform of the electric current that is distributed to the brake lights 1208”);
a brake light assembly (brake lights 1208) configured to produce a light pattern and an intensity in response to the brake light pattern determined by the microcontroller unit (see Paragraph 0029: “The output of the microprocessor is connected through an amplifier 1201 to the brake lights 1208.”; also see Paragraphs 0031-0032); and
an adaptive light control module (comprising at least distance sensor 1205) configured to adjust a brightness of the brake light assembly based on an ambient lighting condition (see Paragraph 0028: “In an additional embodiment of the invention, the generation of the pulsating current for brake lights, emergency lights and other lights is initiated by a vehicle distance sensor.”; as proximity of other vehicles may affect the brake lighting response, it is considered to be “an ambient lighting condition” as broadly claimed).
Separately, for convenience, and NOT relied on for the rejection of claim 1, Examiner notes Ekchian et al. (US Pub No 2012/0185130) which teaches that “Signal lights need to be effective both during daylight hours as well as at night.”, (Paragraph 0006); further, Ekchain teaches using an ambient light sensor to determine the brightness of brake lights (Paragraph 0025).
In regard to claim 2, Polak discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the pressure sensor assembly (brake pedal sensor 1202, Fig 12) is comprised of a brake pedal sensor configured to measure an applied foot pressure (see Paragraph 0034).
In regard to claim 7, Polak discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the microcontroller unit comprises a signal processing module (current amplifier 1201, see Fig 12 and Paragraph 0038) configured to categorize a braking intensity into a predefined level (for example, see Fig 11: Imod, Ihard, Imax).
In regard to claim 8, Polak discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the brake light assembly is configured to produce a pulsating light pattern (see the light pattern of Fig 11, especially from points 0 to 6).
In regard to claim 9, Polak discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the light assembly is configured to produce a sequence of pulsating flashes followed by a steady light for a moderate braking (see moderate braking shown in Fig 8, with pulses from times 1-3, and a steady light after time 3, also see Paragraph 0033).
In regard to claim 10, Polak discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the brake light assembly is configured to produce a continuous solid light for a full or an emergency braking (see maximum braking shown in Fig 10 comprising a continuous solid light after time 3).
In regard to claim 11, Polak discloses a vehicle braking awareness system (see the Title and Abstract) comprising:
a pressure sensor assembly (brake pedal sensor 1202, Fig 12) configured to detect a degree of braking force (see Paragraph 0027: “After the brakes are applied for a short time, with the minimal pressure required to activate the brake light sensor/switch, the current can be distributed in the form of a series of warning pulses at a frequency lower than the frequency occurring for moderate braking.”; also see Paragraph 0031);
a microcontroller unit (microprocessor 1203) comprising a signal processing module configured to categorize the braking force into a predefined level (see Paragraph 0031: “When the brake pedal is depressed at a moment T.sub.p, the brake pedal sensor/switch 1202 becomes activated and sends an electric pulse to the control unit 1210. As a result of this triggering pulse, the microprocessor 1203 generates a waveform of the electric current that is distributed to the brake lights 1208”; also see Fig 11 for example); and
a brake light assembly (brake lights 1208) configured to produce a plurality of varying light patterns corresponding to the predefined level (see Paragraph 0029: “The output of the microprocessor is connected through an amplifier 1201 to the brake lights 1208.”; also see Paragraphs 0031-0032).
In regard to claim 13, Polak discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the predefined level is comprised of a light braking (Tmod, Fig 11), a moderate braking (Thard), or a full braking (Tmax).
In regard to claim 14, Polak discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the brake light assembly comprises an LED array (Paragraph 0040: “includes brake lights 1208 made from semiconductor light-emitting diodes (LEDs). The signalization of these lighting elements is more distinct because their luminance can be easily varied over a wide range and their switching speed is much faster than that of filament lamps”) configured to produce a pulsating light for the light braking (for example, see the pulsating light pattern of Fig 11).
In regard to claim 15, Polak discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the brake light assembly is configured to produce a steady light for the moderate braking (see moderate braking shown in Fig 8, with a steady light after time 3, also see Paragraph 0033).
In regard to claim 16, Polak discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the brake light assembly is configured to produce a continuous solid light for the full braking (see maximum braking shown in Fig 10 comprising a continuous solid light after time 3).
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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polak et al. (US Pub No 2010/0102946), in view of Putz et al. (US Pub No 2024/0326761).
In regard to claims 3-5,
Polak discloses the system of claims 1 and 2, wherein the systems comprise a sensor configured to detect a degree of braking force (brake pedal sensor 1202, Fig 12).
Polak does not positively disclose:
wherein the pressure sensor assembly is comprised of a force-sensitive resistor;
wherein the pressure sensor assembly is comprised of a strain gauge; or
wherein the pressure sensor assembly comprises a hydraulic pressure sensor configured to measure a fluid pressure change within the braking system.
However, the use of force-sensitive resistors, strain gauges, and hydraulic pressure sensors in similar situations is well known in the art.
Putz discloses a method for braking a vehicle (Title). Most importantly, Putz teaches that any one of force-sensitive resistors, strain gauges, and hydraulic pressure sensors may be used interchangeably to measure brake requests. See Paragraph 0408 (emphasis added): “In order to receive an actuation signal from a hydraulic brake, for example, it is recommended, among other things, to insert or add a pressure sensor to the hydraulic line, e.g. branching off. The usual transducers, which are based, for example, on strain (e.g. strain gauges) or, for example, “Force Sensing Resistors” (FSR), are recommended for force measurement.”.
As the system of Polak requires some form of sensor for use as the brake pedal sensor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to simply utilize a known sensor type already in use in similar systems, to include force-sensitive resistors, strain gauges, and hydraulic pressure sensors as taught by Putz. Such a combination is considered to be a simple and obvious substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2151 III).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polak et al. (US Pub No 2010/0102946), in view of Douglas (US Pub No 2008/0164993).
In regard to claim 6,
Polak discloses the system of claim 1.
Polak does not positively disclose wherein the pressure sensor assembly is configured to detect a braking force within a range of 0.1 to 100 pounds per square inch.
Firstly, Examiner considers that simply selecting a desired range of operational pressures would be performed through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 IIA), and as such, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. In support of this assertion, Examiner notes Douglas which disclose a vehicle system for varying the intensity of brake lights (see the Abstract). Most importantly, Douglas teaches that an appropriate amount range of braking force would fall into the range claimed in claim 6 (MPEP 2131.03); see Fig 5 of Douglas, along with Paragraph 0023, wherein Douglas recommends a range of 20-80 PSI.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polak et al. (US Pub No 2010/0102946), in view of Sanchez et al. (US Pat No 10,207,635).
In regard to claim 12,
Polak discloses the system of claim 11.
Polak does not positively disclose wherein the microcontroller unit comprises a communication interface configured to integrate with a vehicle diagnostic through an OBD-II interface.
However, the use of OBD-II interfaces in vehicle systems is very well known in the art.
Sanchez discloses a system for modifying brake light intensity (see the Title). Most importantly, Sanchez teaches using an OBD-II interface to allow for brake light commands to be sent to brake lights (See Col 10, lines 33-54, especially: “the brake light interface may send a command indirectly either directly to the brake lights or indirectly to the brake lights via an on board device (OBD) system”).
Configuring the system of Polak with a well known interface mechanism (OBD-II) to allow for integrated communication between system components (i.e., as taught by Sanchez) is considered to be a simple and obvious use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2141 III), and as such, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polak et al. (US Pub No 2010/0102946), in view of Putz et al. (US Pub No 2024/0326761) and Ekchian et al. (US Pub No 2012/0185130).
In regard to claim 17,
Polak discloses a vehicle braking awareness system (see the Title and Abstract) comprising:
a pressure sensor assembly (brake pedal sensor 1202, Fig 12) configured to detect a degree of force applied to a braking system of a vehicle (see Paragraph 0027: “After the brakes are applied for a short time, with the minimal pressure required to activate the brake light sensor/switch, the current can be distributed in the form of a series of warning pulses at a frequency lower than the frequency occurring for moderate braking.”; also see Paragraph 0031), the pressure sensor assembly comprising a brake pedal sensor (see Paragraph 0029 and Fig 12);
a microcontroller unit (microprocessor 1203) configured to receive a real-time data from the pressure sensor assembly and to determine a brake light pattern based on a braking intensity (see Paragraph 0031: “When the brake pedal is depressed at a moment T.sub.p, the brake pedal sensor/switch 1202 becomes activated and sends an electric pulse to the control unit 1210. As a result of this triggering pulse, the microprocessor 1203 generates a waveform of the electric current that is distributed to the brake lights 1208”; also see Fig 11 for example), the microcontroller unit further comprising a signal processing module (current amplifier 1201, see Fig 12 and Paragraph 0038) configured to categorize the braking intensity into a predefined level (for example, see Fig 11: Imod, Ihard, Imax);
a brake light assembly (brake lights 1208) comprising an LED array (Paragraph 0040: “includes brake lights 1208 made from semiconductor light-emitting diodes (LEDs). The signalization of these lighting elements is more distinct because their luminance can be easily varied over a wide range and their switching speed is much faster than that of filament lamps”) configured to produce a pulsating light for the light braking (for example, see the pulsating light pattern of Fig 11) configured to produce a varying light pattern and a varying intensity based on the brake light pattern determined by the microcontroller unit (see Paragraph 0029: “The output of the microprocessor is connected through an amplifier 1201 to the brake lights 1208.”; also see Paragraphs 0031-0032); and
an adaptive light control module configured to adjust a brightness of the brake light assembly based on an ambient lighting condition.
Similarly as set forth above when addressing claim 1, Polak is considered to comprise “an adaptive light control module” (comprising at least distance sensor 1205) configured to adjust a brightness of the brake light assembly based on an “ambient lighting condition”, (see Paragraph 0028: “In an additional embodiment of the invention, the generation of the pulsating current for brake lights, emergency lights and other lights is initiated by a vehicle distance sensor.”; as proximity of other vehicles may affect the brake lighting response, it is considered to be “an ambient lighting condition” as broadly claimed).
Polak does not positively disclose:
the pressure sensor assembly comprising a hydraulic pressure sensor.
However, the use of hydraulic pressure sensors in similar situations is well known in the art.
Putz discloses a method for braking a vehicle (Title). Most importantly, Putz teaches that hydraulic pressure sensors may be used to measure brake requests. See Paragraph 0408 (emphasis added): “In order to receive an actuation signal from a hydraulic brake, for example, it is recommended, among other things, to insert or add a pressure sensor to the hydraulic line, e.g. branching off.
As the system of Polak requires some form of sensor for use as the brake pedal sensor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to simply utilize a known sensor type already in use in similar systems, to include hydraulic pressure sensors as taught by Putz. Such a combination is considered to be a simple and obvious substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2151 III).
Polak does not positively disclose:
wherein the adaptive light control module comprises an ambient light sensor configured to detect an external light level.
However, such practices are known in the art. Examiner notes Ekchian et al. (US Pub No 2012/0185130) which teaches that “Signal lights need to be effective both during daylight hours as well as at night.”, (Paragraph 0006); further, Ekchian teaches using an ambient light sensor to determine the brightness of brake lights (Paragraph 0025).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further configure the system of Polak with an ambient light sensor, configured to detect an external light level, to allow for the brake lights to be effective both during daylight hours as well as at night, as taught by Ekchian.
In regard to claim 19, Polak modified supra discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the microcontroller unit is further comprised of a communication interface (considered to be the circuitry connecting 1203 to at least 1201 and 1208 in Fig 12).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polak et al. (US Pub No 2010/0102946), with Putz et al. (US Pub No 2024/0326761) and Ekchian et al. (US Pub No 2012/0185130), in further view of Douglas (US Pub No 2008/0164993).
In regard to claim 18,
Polak modified supra discloses the system of claim 17.
Polak does not positively disclose wherein the pressure sensor assembly is configured to detect braking force within a range of 0.1 to 100 pounds per square inch.
Firstly, Examiner considers that simply selecting a desired range of operational pressures would be performed through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 IIA), and as such, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. In support of this assertion, Examiner notes Douglas which disclose a vehicle system for varying the intensity of brake lights (see the Abstract). Most importantly, Douglas teaches that an appropriate amount range of braking force would fall into the range claimed in claim 6 (MPEP 2131.03); see Fig 5 of Douglas, along with Paragraph 0023, wherein Douglas recommends a range of 20-80 PSI.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polak et al. (US Pub No 2010/0102946), with Putz et al. (US Pub No 2024/0326761) and Ekchian et al. (US Pub No 2012/0185130), in further view of Sanchez et al. (US Pat No 10,207,635).
In regard to claim 20,
Polak modified supra discloses the system of claim 17.
Polak does not positively disclose wherein the communication interface is configured to transmit data to a vehicle diagnostic through an OBD-II interface.
However, the use of OBD-II interfaces in vehicle systems is very well known in the art.
Sanchez discloses a system for modifying brake light intensity (see the Title). Most importantly, Sanchez teaches using an OBD-II interface to allow for brake light commands to be sent to brake lights (See Col 10, lines 33-54, especially: “the brake light interface may send a command indirectly either directly to the brake lights or indirectly to the brake lights via an on board device (OBD) system”).
Configuring the system of Polak with a well known interface mechanism (OBD-II) to allow for data transmission between system components (i.e., as taught by Sanchez) is considered to be a simple and obvious use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2141 III), and as such, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB M AMICK whose telephone number is (571)272-5790. The examiner can normally be reached Core Hours 10-6 M-F (First Fridays Off).
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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.
/JACOB M AMICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747