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 .
Double Patenting
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,246,665. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims recite substantially identical claim language. In the exemplary claim 1 the claim differs from the claim 1 of the patent in the language “first state” and “second state” are replaced with “first mode signal” and “second mode signal”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the patent to recite modes as alternative to the recited state transition for the benefit of establishing distinct programmable states for the controller circuit.
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 1-3, 12, 14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seibert (US 10,127,742)
With respect to claims 1 and 12 Seibert teaches an accessory controller configured the accessory controller (col. 17 line 31) comprising: a network input configured for connection to a communications network pin (Pins 6 and 14 further see col. 23 lines 10-30) of the OBD port (see OBD-II port, col. 23 line 8), a battery input (col. 8 lines 7-10, and line 36 for example) configured for connection to a battery pin of the OBD port; a output (see for example bidirectional communication with vehicle ECU, see RF transceiver with child buckle TX) configured for connection to the vehicle accessory (portable controller for child safety) and a controller circuit (microcontroller col. 7 line 62) configured to (i) monitor a communications signal (see value returned during querying to determine underway status col. lines 45-65) provided via the network input, (ii) monitor a battery voltage (col. 8 lines 7-10, and line 36 for example battery data fed to controller) provided via the battery input, and (iii) selectively deliver a mode signal (journey status, see ended confirming mode and monitoring mode col. 3 lines 20-25) to the output depending at least in part on the communications signal and the battery voltage, wherein the controller circuit is configured to transition from delivery of a first mode signal (journey ended) to delivery of a second mode (initial query or underway) signal when the communications signal exceeds a first threshold (from zero voltage to logic high voltage level response indicating journey is underway) and the battery voltage exceeds a second threshold (predefined level col. 8 line 44, 51-57, col. 23 lines 66- col. 24 lines 8).
With respect to claim 2 Seibert teaches the mode signal is a power output configured for connection to the vehicle accessory (when vehicle is stopped and journey has ended and child is buckled power output to alarm is output, col. 3 line 26, col. 25 lines 5-20).
With respect to claim 3 Seibert teaches the first mode signal is associated with partial functionality of the accessory in a sleep state (continued query not allowed when journey is ended) while the vehicle is parked and the second mode signal is associated with partial functionality of the accessory in a wake state while the vehicle is parked (confirming mode before transition to underway).
With respect to claim 14 Seibert teaches the plurality of mode signals are provided by a first output and a second output from the controller circuit (see broadcast status, alarm or waring col. 3 lines 20-30)
With respect to claim 16 Seibert teaches an accessory controller configured the accessory controller (col. 17 line 31) comprising: a network input configured for connection to a communications network pin (Pins 6 and 14 further see col. 23 lines 10-30) of the OBD port (see OBD-II port, col. 23 line 8), a battery input (col. 8 lines 7-10, and line 36 for example) configured for connection to a battery pin of the OBD port; and a controller circuit (microcontroller col. 7 line 62) configured to deliver a vehicle operation signal (journey status underway and active querying permitted to continue) to the vehicle accessory (portable controller for child safety) when a communications signal (see value returned during querying to determine underway status col. lines 45-65) provided via the network input exceeds a first voltage threshold (logic high voltage level response indicating journey is underway) and a battery signal provided via the battery input exceeds a second threshold (predefined level col. 8 line 44, 51-57, col. 23 lines 66- col. 24 lines 8).
With respect to claim 17 Seibert teaches an output configured for connection to the vehicle accessory (see bidirectional communication with the vehicle ECU), wherein the controller circuit is configured to deliver the vehicle operation signal via the at least one output.
With respect to claim 18 Seibert teaches the at least one output includes a first output and a second output (CAN high/low provides a differential signal on two I/O pins), wherein the vehicle operation signal is provided by a combination of the first output and the second output.
With respect to claim 19 Seibert teaches the vehicle operation signal is one of a plurality of mode signals, the plurality of mode signals including a first mode signal associated with the vehicle being off and parked (journey ended status), a second mode signal (initial querying after battery voltage detected, see col. 24 line 10 start or querying) associated with the vehicle being on and parked, and a third mode signal associated with the vehicle being on and driving (underway status).
With respect to claim 20 Seibert teaches the first mode signal is associated with no functionality of the vehicle accessory (journey ended no child buckled vehicle off), wherein the second mode signal is associated with partial functionality of the vehicle accessory (transition state from ended to underway), and wherein the third mode signal is associated with full functionality of the vehicle accessory (underway operation).
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 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seibert in view of Mader et al. (US 20180277028).
With respect to claim 11 and 13 Seibert teaches the known use of an accessory however does not teach the accessory is a camera. Mader teaches the known use of a dashboard camera and the network input is a controller area network (CAN) input. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the accessory system of Seibert to the dash cam of Mader to the benefit of ensuring the driver is aware to deactivate dash cam electronics.
Claims 1, 12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan et al. (US 20050177288) in view of Barden et al. (US 11,982,694).
With respect to claim 16 Sullivan teaches an accessory controller configured the accessory controller comprising: a network input configured for connection to a communications connection (see data connection with OBD port paragraph 0017-18) of the OBD port (10), a battery input (paragraph 0036, further see Fig. 3 paragraph 0047-49) configured for connection to a battery connection of the OBD port; and a controller circuit (see accessory microcontroller 14) configured to deliver a vehicle operation signal (allow the lift 34 operation in a safe mode) to the vehicle accessory (wheelchair lift) when a communications signal (digital comm signal to logic 24 or 38 indicating a TRUE state) provided via the network input (see input from vehicle data bus which interfaces logic) exceeds a first voltage threshold (transition from zero to active logic high of digital data transmission) and a battery signal provided via the battery input exceeds a second threshold (see battery voltage level for maintaining charge value paragraph 0049). Sullivan does not detail the pin architecture of the OBD port. As Applicant admits the network and battery pins are typical and known pins found in a OBD port (paragraph 0030), Barden for example teaches the known use of a network pin (see pin 6, 14) and battery voltage (P16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the known pin configuration of Barden to the OBD port of Sullivan for the benefit of reliably interfacing the known connection in variety of vehicle.
With respect to claims 1 and 12 Sullivan teaches an accessory controller configured the accessory controller comprising: a network input configured for connection to a communications connection (see data connection with OBD port paragraph 0017-18) of the OBD port (10), a battery input (paragraph 0036, further see Fig. 3 paragraph 0047-49) configured for connection to a battery connection of the OBD port; a output (see for example bidirectional communication with vehicle ECU, for controlling engine RPM) configured for connection to the vehicle accessory (lift) and a controller circuit (see accessory microcontroller 14) configured to a controller circuit configured to (i) monitor a communications signal (digital comm signal to logic 24 or 38 indicating a TRUE state) provided via the network input, (ii) monitor a battery voltage provided via the battery input, and (iii) selectively deliver a mode signal (allow the lift 34 operation in a safe mode or disable when safe condition are not met) to the output depending at least in part on the communications signal and the battery voltage, wherein the controller circuit is configured to transition from delivery of a first mode signal to delivery of a second mode signal when the communications signal exceeds a first threshold (transition from zero to active logic high of digital data transmission) and the battery voltage exceeds a second threshold (see battery voltage level for maintaining charge value paragraph 0049). Sullivan does not detail the pin architecture of the OBD port. As Applicant admits the network and battery pins are typical and known pins found in a OBD port (paragraph 0030), Barden for example teaches the known use of a network pin (see pin 6, 14) and battery voltage (P16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the known pin configuration of Barden to the OBD port of Sullivan for the benefit of reliably interfacing the known connection in variety of vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10 and 15 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:
With respect to claim 4 Seibert teaches the controller circuit however does not teach the controller is configured to transition from delivery of the second mode signal to delivery of a third mode signal when the battery voltage exceeds a third threshold indicative of vehicle operation or jumps by a change threshold indicative of vehicle operation. At least this further limitation is not taught or rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
With respect to claim 15 Seibert teaches the plurality of mode signals however does not teach the signals include: a first mode signal wherein the first output and the second output are off; a second mode signal wherein the first output is on and the second output is off; and a third mode signal wherein the first output is on and the second output is on. At least this further limitation is not taught or rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Fin whose telephone number is (571)272-5921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at 571-272-7429. 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.
MICHAEL FIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2836
/MICHAEL R. FIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836