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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 includes the phrase “a remote light being located on one of the host vehicle and an operator of the host vehicle” in line 6. As the specification par 0020 teaches each alternative attachment of the remote lights as separate examples, Examiner construes the phrase to mean “a remote light being located on one of the host vehicle or being located on one of an operator of the host vehicle” for examination purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the remote light" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a remote light" in line 6. It is unclear if this remote light is an additional, different remote light or the previously mentioned remote light. Examiner assumes the two remote lights to be a same light for examination purposes.
Further depending claims not mentioned inherit the deficiencies of their respective base claims and are rejected [objected to] under similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(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 1-4, 6-9, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Werner et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20050162265 A1, hereinafter “Werner”).
Regarding Claim 1, Werner teaches a system (par 0118 Fig 6 lighting system) comprising:
a detector configured to sense light emitted by a host light of a host vehicle for detecting a lighting state of the host light (par 0091 Fig 1A teach a detector comprising a host photoelectric sensor 151 which senses light emitted by a host light/brake lamp 53 of a host vehicle [par 0042 Fig 6 the host vehicle e.g. a motorcycle] for detecting a lighting state light emitted/not emitted [par 0042 tail light lighting functions]);
a communications system (par 0118 Fig 6 communications system comprising host generator/transmitter 100 on the vehicle, par 0119 remote receiver/lighting assembly 299 fastened to helmet 300) configured to communicate the detected lighting state between the host light and the remote light (par 0118 Fig 6 the lighting of lamp 53 is detected by generator/transmitter 100 [using photodiode Fig 1A 151 to sense the light emitted]; par 0119 generator/ transmitter 100 communicates a signal 190 to magnetic coupling system 200, par 0091 signal 190 comprising detected lighting state signal 190, containing the predetermined lighting state code, [the signal broadcasted by antenna 105 wirelessly] to the magnetic-coupling 200 and remote receiver/lighting assembly 299 [e.g. located at the helmet]); and
a remote light being located on one of the host vehicle and an operator of the host vehicle (par 0087 Fig 4 a remote receiving unit magnetic-coupling 200 and receiver/lighting assembly 299 having a lighting element 290 on helmet 300 located on the operator) and configured to replicate the lighting state of the host light (par 0087 Fig 1B upon receiving the brake light “light emitted state” signal 190 containing the predetermined code, the decoding microprocessor 220 of magnetic-coupling 200 illuminates a lamp or group of lamps 290 on the helmet 300 to simulate the host vehicle brake light).
Regarding Claim 2, Werner teaches the system of claim 1, wherein
the detector includes one of an optical sensor, a photodiode, an electrical sensor (par 0091 Fig 1A photoelectric sensor 151), an accelerometer, a strain gauge, an infrared (IR) detector, a magnetic field sensor, an electric field sensor, a voltage detector, a current detector, and a camera.
Regarding Claim 3, Werner teaches the system of claim 1, wherein
the host light includes one of an incandescent light, a compact fluorescent light (CFL), a Xenon light, and a light emitting diode (LED) (Werner Figs 1B par 0062 lighting elements comprise LEDs).
Regarding Claim 4, Werner teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the lighting state includes one of an on state and an off state (par as 0091,0118 Fig 1A teach a detector comprising a host photoelectric sensor 151 which senses light emitted by a host light/brake lamp 53 of a host vehicle [par 0042 Fig 6 the host vehicle e.g. a motorcycle] for detecting at least lighting states: light emitted “on”/not emitted “off”).
Regarding Claim 6, Werner teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the remote light is located on one of a helmet (par 0087 Fig 4 remote lighting element 290 on helmet 300 located on the operator) and clothing of a motorcycle driver.
Regarding Claim 7, Werner teaches the system of claim 1, wherein one of the remote light and the communications system is powered by one of a battery (Werner par 0010 Fig 1B the remote receiver light units 150 are powered by batteries 242), solar energy, kinetic energy, and the host vehicle.
Regarding Claim 8, Werner teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the communications system includes a wireless connection (Werner par 0076 Fig 1B lighting system 10 provides a teach-and-learn protocol for establishing a wireless communication link between an H-field backscatter generator and a magnetic-coupling [remote lighting unit]).
Regarding Claim 9, Werner teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the wireless connection is one of unidirectional (Werner par 0078 Fig 1B the wireless communication link to remote receiving units 200 that receive radio frequency signals from a transmitting unit 100; bidirectional communication is only enabled in a wired mode) and bidirectional.
Regarding Claim 15, Werner teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the communications system includes a wired connection (Werner par 0078 Fig 1B bidirectional communication is enabled in a wired connection mode).
Regarding Claim 16, Werner teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the communications system includes a separate transmitter (Werner par 0060 Fig 1A backscatter generator 100 transmits an encoded identification signal) and receiver (Werner par 0087 Fig 4 a remote receiving unit magnetic-coupling 200 having a lighting element 290 may be placed on helmet 300 attached on the operator).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20050162265 A1, hereinafter “Werner”) in view of Stam et al (U.S. Patent Publication 6606492 B1, hereinafter “Stam”).
Regarding Claim 5, Werner teaches the system of claim 1. However, Werner appears not to expressly teach wherein the detector is configured to detect one of a color and an intensity of the host light.
Stam teaches a detector configured to detect one of a color and an intensity of the host light (paras 0083-0084 Fig 1 optical detector system 102 on vehicle 100 comprises image sensor 201 to sense light levels; par 0094 Fig 11 the image sensor 201 day discern and output both intensity and color values).
Werner and Stam are analogous art as they each pertain to vehicle lighting control. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement the vehicle remote light control system as taught in Werner, to include the detector configured to detect one of a color and an intensity of the host light as taught in Stam, in order for a vehicle lighting control system to more accurately control remote lamps to replicate the vehicle’s host lights.
Claims 10-13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner in view of Baumann et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20100147215 A1, hereinafter “Baumann”).
Regarding Claim 10, Werner teaches the system of Claim 8. However, Werner appears not to expressly teach wherein the wireless connection includes a BLUETOOTH connection.
Baumann teaches wherein a wireless connection includes a BLUETOOTH connection (paras 0036,0037 Fig 4 Bluetooth is used as a generally known industry standard according to IEEE 802.15.1 for the wireless radio networking over a relatively short distance of up to approximately 100m ).
Werner and Baumann are analogous art as they each pertain to wireless communications. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement the wireless communication taught in Werner to comprise a BLUETOOTH connection, as taught in Baumann, in order for the wireless connection to operate under a widely used and reliable protocol.
Regarding Claim 11, Werner teaches the system of Claim 8. However, Werner appears not to expressly teach wherein the wireless connection utilizes at least one wideband radio frequency (RF) link.
Baumann teaches wherein a wireless connection includes at least one wideband radio frequency link (paras 0036,0037 Fig 4 Bluetooth is used to frequency spread and transmit a broadband signal).
Werner and Baumann are analogous art as they each pertain to wireless communications. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement the wireless connection taught in Werner to utilize at least one wideband radio frequency link, as taught in Baumann, in order to provide operable communication at low energy levels.
Regarding Claim 12, Werner teaches the system of Claim 8. However, Werner appears not to expressly teach wherein the wireless connection utilizes a single narrowband radio frequency (RF) link.
Baumann teaches wherein the wireless connection utilizes a single narrowband radio frequency (RF) link (paras 0036,0037 Fig 4 the Bluetooth wireless connection utilizes a single narrowband by converting it into and transmitting it as a broadband signal).
Werner and Baumann are analogous art as they each pertain to wireless communications. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement the wireless connection taught in Werner to utilize a single narrowband radio frequency (RF) link, as taught in Baumann, in order to provide operable communication at low energy levels.
Regarding Claim 13, Werner teaches the system of Claim 8. However, Werner appears not to expressly teach does not explicitly disclose wherein the wireless connection utilizes multiple narrowband radio frequency (RF) links.
Baumann teaches wherein the wireless connection utilizes multiple narrowband radio frequency (RF) links (paras 0036,0037 Fig 4 Bluetooth is used to frequency spread and transmit across many narrowband frequencies).
Werner and Baumann are analogous art as they each pertain to wireless communications. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement the wireless connection taught in Werner to utilize multiple narrowband radio frequency (RF) links, as taught in Baumann, in order to provide operable communication at low energy levels.
Regarding Claim 18, Werner teaches the system of claim 1. However, Werner as modified appears not to expressly teach wherein the communications system is configured to hop between multiple frequencies.
Baumann teaches wherein the communications system is configured to hop between multiple frequencies (Bluetooth utilizes frequency hopping that reduces noise and provides communication security).
Werner and Baumann are analogous art as they each pertain to wireless communications. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement the wireless communication system taught in Werner to hop between multiple frequencies, as taught in Baumann, in order for the wireless connection to operate under a widely used and reliable protocol that provides security and reduces noise.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner in view of Cohen et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20110051400 A1, hereinafter “Cohen”).
Regarding Claim 17, Werner teaches the system of Claim 1. However, Werner appears not to expressly teach wherein the communications system includes a transceiver.
Cohen in e.g. [0022] teaches wherein a communication system includes a transceiver in order for a vehicle system to communicate with a lighting module wirelessly and also to render the motorcycle and rider more visible on the road (See e.g. ABSTRACT, [0018)).
Werner and Cohen are analogous art as they each pertain to vehicle lighting control. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement the system and the communication system taught in Werner to include a transceiver, as taught in Cohen, in order for a vehicle system to bi-directionally communicate with a lighting module wirelessly with acknowledgements and status for higher reliability.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner in view of Howard et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20120306641 A1, hereinafter “Howard”).
Regarding Claim 19, Werner teaches the system of Claim 1. However, Werner appears not to expressly teach wherein the communications system is configured to utilize a key-coded wireless signal.
Howard in e.g. [0055] teaches wherein the communications system is configured to utilize a key-coded wireless signal (See e.g. "CDMA," [0055], code division multiple access wireless communication is key coded).
Werner and Howard are analogous art as they each pertain to wireless communications with headgear. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement the communication system taught in Werner to include a wireless signal comprising a key coded wireless signal as in Howard, in order to provide additional security.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner in view of Baumann and further in view of Oba (U.S. Patent Application 20100090820 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Werner as modified teaches the system of Claim 13. However, Werner as modified appears not to expressly teach wherein the multiple narrowband RF links include a first RF link operating at about 315 Mhz and a second RF link operating at about 433 MHz.
Oba in [0076] teaches wherein the multiple narrowband RF links include a first RF link operating at about 315 Mhz and a second RF link operating at about 433 MHz.
Werner Baumann and Oba are analogous art as they each pertain to wireless communications. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement multiple narrowband RF links taught in Werner/Baumann to include a first RF link operating at about 315 Mhz and a second RF link operating at about 433 MHz, as taught in Oba, in order for the RF communication to be operable at conventionally used frequencies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7731. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9a-5p EST.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached on 571-270-7230. 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.
/MARK EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624