DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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(s) 1-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter et al. (US 2018/0154822 A1), hereinafter referred to as Salter, in view of Weston et al. (US 2025/0091517 A1) and Aftanas (US 2011/0240695 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Salter teaches a rail adapted for mounting on a vehicle equipped with an electrical harness, comprising:
a light emitting diode (LED) array comprising a plurality of LEDs (see paragraph [0041] where plurality of LEDs is disclosed) affixed to an outer frame of the rail (48 and 52), wherein the outer frame of the rail is configured to be mounted to a vehicle (see figure 2 where rails 48 and 52);
a driver circuit to selectively activate individual LEDs of the plurality of LEDs, the driver circuit comprising software that provides for a plurality of lighting modes (see paragraph [0044] where drive circuity is disclosed; and paragraph [0058] where processor is disclosed).
Salter does not explicitly teach outer frame of the rail is configured to be mounted to a running board of a vehicle.
PNG
media_image1.png
473
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
418
706
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Weston et al. teaches a running board 20 comprising a plurality of LEDs 35 where the LEDs 35 could be located at an outer edge 37 as disclosed in paragraph [0029].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify Salter to teach mounting to a running board of a vehicle as taught by Weston et al. to help the operator or passenger more easily locate and place their foot on the running board and mounting on an outer edge allows the running board to be visible from an exterior of the motor vehicle (see paragraph [0029] of Weston et al.).
Salter modified by Weston et al. does not explicitly teach wiring to provide electrical communication with the vehicle electrical harness.
Aftanas teaches wiring (plurality of conductors 52a, 52b, 52c; paragraph [0029]) to provide electrical communication with the vehicle electrical harness (paragraph [0029] where wiring harness of vehicle 12 is disclosed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the rail of Salter to include wiring and wiring harness as taught by Aftanas as an alternative way to provide an electrical connection to illuminate the light sources within the rails (see paragraph [0029] of Aftanas).
Regarding claim 2, Salter teaches the rail of claim 1 wherein the frame of the rail is configured to be a mounted parallel to a lengthwise axis of the vehicle (see first side rail 48 and second side rail 52 in at least figure 2 and at least paragraph [0035]).
Regarding claim 3, Salter teaches the rail of claim 1 wherein the plurality of LEDs (paragraph [0041] discloses that the light assembles 64 are a plurality of LEDs) form more than one row along a length of the LED array (paragraph [0041] discloses one or more LED strips 90).
Regarding claim 4, Salter teaches the rail of claim 1 wherein the plurality of LEDs (see paragraph [0041] where light assemblies 64 may include a plurality of light emitting diodes) are part of a light pipe, an elongated light strip (light strip 90; paragraph [0041]), or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 5, Salter teaches the rail of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of LEDs are high-intensity LEDs (see paragraph [0058] where plurality of light sources 64 is disclosed and an intensity of the light sources is disclosed).
Regarding claim 6, Salter teaches the rail of claim 1 wherein the driver circuit is a printed circuit board (see paragraph [0044] where printed circuit board is disclosed).
Regarding claim 7, Salter teaches the rail of claim 1 wherein the printed circuit board (paragraph [0044] where printed circuit board is disclosed) is entirely sealed to be weatherproof (see paragraph [0051] where overmold 114 protects light sources 94 from physical and chemical damage arising from environmental exposure. Paragraph [0052] discloses 114 is substantially resistant to weathering).
Regarding claim 8, Salter teaches the rail of claim 1 wherein the driver circuit is integrated into the frame of the rail (see paragraph [0044] where driver circuit is disclosed).
Regarding claim 9, Salter teaches the rail of claim 1 further comprising a controller (134; paragraph [0057]) operating with a key fob or smart phone app for remotely activating the driver circuit (see paragraph [0056]-[0057], [0061, 0066]).
Regarding claim 10, Salter teaches the rail of claim 7 further comprising an on board control unit configured to provide a user interface for controlling the driver circuit (see paragraph [0058] where user interface is disclosed).
Regarding claim 11, Salter teaches the rail of claim 1 wherein the plurality of lighting modes includes at least two of static, dynamic monochrome, dynamic polychrome, and message forming (see paragraph [0049] where light sources 94 create static and dynamic patterns of light by independently illuminating certain light source(s) 94).
Regarding claim 12, Salter teaches the rail of claim 1 wherein polychrome activation of the plurality of LEDs occurs and includes at least two colors from among: red, yellow, blue, green, and white (see paragraph [0041] where light assemblies by include white, amber, red, green and /or blue LEDs).
Regarding claim 15, Salter teaches a system comprising: a first rail and a second rail of claim 1 configured to be mounted parallel to each other on a vehicle (see figure 2 where first rail 48 and second rail 52 are mounted parallel to each other on a roof of a vehicle) and parallel to a lengthwise axis of the vehicle (see figure 2).
The recitation that running board has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter et al. (US 2018/0154822 A1) in view of Weston et al. (US 2025/0091517 A1) and Aftanas (US 2011/0240695 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Michie et al. (US 2013/0135880 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Salter modified by Weston et al. and Aftanas teaches the rail of claim 1 but Salter fails to teach further comprising a solar panel configured to at least partially power the plurality of LEDs of the rail.
Michie et al. teaches a solar panel (see abstract where solar panel is disclosed) configured to at least partially power the plurality of LEDs of the rail (see paragraph [0007] where a light formed in the support rail is powered by the solar energy collected by the solar panel).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the rail of Salter to include a solar panel as taught by Michie et al. as an alternative way to provide power to illuminate the light sources within the rails (see paragraph [0007] and Abstract of Michie et al.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12, 14 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendment of independent claim 1.
Applicant amended claim 1 to remove the a “roof of” and added the limitation of “a running board”. Applicant argues that the prior art of record, Salter, does not teach the limitation of the “outer frame of the rail configured to be mounted to a running board of a vehicle”. Applicant further argues that the roof rack and a running board solve different technical problems.
A new reference, Weston et al. (US 2025/0091517 A1), teaches the newly recited limiting. See rejection above. Therefore, claim 1 is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter et al. (US 2018/0154822 A1) in view of Weston et al. (US 2025/0091517 A1) and Aftanas (US 2011/0240695 A1).
Claims 2-12, 14 and 15 remain rejected based on dependency on a rejected base claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hellin Navarro (US 2020/0189451 A1) teaches a lighting mechanism 110 that may be arranged on running boards, mud flaps, roof racks, bumpers, etc. Dellock et al. (US 2015/0175059 A1) teaches an illuminated running board.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA MCMILLAN APENTENG whose telephone number is (571)272-5510. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at 571-270-5046. 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.
/JESSICA M APENTENG/Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights