CTNF 19/218,248 CTNF 95513 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement 06-52 The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/24/2025 was filed before the first action on the merits of the application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Specification 06-16 AIA Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because: The first sentence of the abstract is information known from the title/can be implied it should be removed. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 4-5 recite the limitation "the defined frequency" in line 1 of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claims 4-5 depend directly on claim 1, neither claim 1 nor these claims provide antecedent basis of “a defined frequency”; claim 3 does provide such basis for a defined frequency; however claims only receive antecedent basis for limitation from either themselves or claims on which they depend thus claims 4-5 lack antecedent basis for “the defined frequency”. 07-34-01 Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding Claim 17, it recites “wherein the further distinguishing feature is behind the reflector, wherein the further distinguishing feature is temporarily concealed by the movement pattern.” The issue with this limitation is that “behind the reflector” is not a definite position; the claims do not clearly define what constitute the front or rear of the reflector; further if one takes the position that the front is the side facing the transmitter/receiver then this creates the issue in that the bounds of protection is not static and changes based on the positional relationship between a vehicle (with reflector) and a transmitter/receiver. E.g. in one position a vehicle with reflector is located (from the point of view of the transmitter/receiver); such that distinguishing mark is behind the reflector; however the vehicle then turns such that the distinguishing mark is no longer “behind” the reflector from the point of view of the transmitter/receiver. In the first part of the example this would infringe on the claims however later in the second part of the example the same physical system would no longer infringe as what constitutes the regions that are “behind” the reflector are dependent on a changing definition of what/where is the “front” of the reflector.) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-11, 13-14,and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022078835 A1, “MEASURING ARRANGEMENT AND MEASURING METHOD”, Hofmann et al and further in view of US 20240069175 A1, “SENSOR CALIBRATION AND LOCALIZATION USING KNOWN OBJECT IDENTIFICATION”, Sterling et al . Regarding Claim 1, Hofmann et al teaches “. A method for identifying a vehicle in a traffic area with a traffic monitoring system comprising: transmitting a signal with a transmitter for the traffic monitoring system; capturing a signal reflected by a reflector arranged on a vehicle moving in the traffic area with a receiver for the traffic monitoring system,” ( [0007] … Furthermore, a measuring arrangement for determining the position of a moving vehicle that includes a reflector is proposed. The measuring arrangement comprises a first optical detection device and a second optical detection device, each of which is configured to detect the position of the vehicle by means of a measuring beam emitted to the reflector and reflected back by the reflector. The first optical detection device is designed to transmit the detected position directly or indirectly to the second detection device. Alternatively or additionally, the second optical detection device is designed to transmit the detected position directly or indirectly to the first d" Here Hofmann teaches using a reflector on a vehicle and external/separate “optical detection” devices to track the vehicle’s position; from [0064] “optical devices” in the context of Hofmann is understood to include cameras, radar, and/or lidar ) ” and identifying, with a control unit, the vehicle when the signal characteristic corresponds to a signal characteristic that is associated with the movement pattern and is stored in the traffic monitoring system.” ([0007] “The measuring arrangement comprises a first optical detection device and a second optical detection device, each of which is configured to detect the position of the vehicle by means of a measuring beam emitted to the reflector and reflected back by the reflector.”) Hofmann however does not teach “wherein the reflector moves about an at least one axis with a movement pattern that is associated with the vehicle such that the reflected signal has a defined signal characteristic;” Sterling et al teaches a similar (transmitter/receiver which detects a reflector) system which includes “reflector moves about an at least one axis with a movement pattern that is associated with the vehicle such that the reflected signal has a defined signal characteristic;” and is tracked/identified with a signal characteristic “associated with the movement pattern” “ ( [0031] In addition to selecting a calibration object with a high RCS (radar cross section), the object is made more detectable relative to other detected objects by moving it in a known manner. The processor that processes the radar signal then looks for anything moving in that known manner. In one embodiment, the object is simply rotated at a known frequency. The unique multiple tetrahedron shape is ideal for continually providing a known RCS response signal as the object is rotated, since multiple different tetrahedrons are visible as the object rotates. This provides the highest strength return when the corner reflector is facing the detector. It then decreases as the angle changes) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application to modify Hofmann et al to include rotating the reflector as taught by Sterling as part of the tracking system. One would be motivated to implement the rotation to allow for the radar (transmitter/receiver)to more easily identify the marker from background noise thereby improving the operation of the radar tracking of Hofmann ([0007] Hofmann teaches using optical sensors to track vehicle’s reflector + [0064] optical sensors includes radar ) . Sterling et al teaches this improvement in ([0024] … Calibrating a radar sensor can be done using a radar reflector or corner reflector to provide an easily identifiable object. However, calibration is still problematic because radar sensors have a high degree of noise which makes it difficult to filter. Data that is returned is low fidelity and sparse, and thus it can be difficult to distinguish between objects in a radar return. FIGS. 2-3 illustrate highly reflective radar reflectors that can be used for calibration. The radar reflector can be rotated at a known frequency so that it is more easily detected with FFT filtering , …) Regarding Claim 2, modified Hoffman teaches “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the movement pattern is a rotation about the at least one axis.” ( [0031] “In addition to selecting a calibration object with a high RCS (radar cross section), the object is made more detectable relative to other detected objects by moving it in a known manner. The processor that processes the radar signal then looks for anything moving in that known manner. In one embodiment, the object is simply rotated at a known frequency.” “at a known frequency” is understood to mean a “defined” frequency, and implicitly from ‘rotation” this occurs about at least one axis as rotation requires such by its common definition. ) Regarding Claim 3, modified Hoffman teaches “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the rotation about the at least one axis takes place at a defined frequency.” ( [0031] “In addition to selecting a calibration object with a high RCS (radar cross section), the object is made more detectable relative to other detected objects by moving it in a known manner. The processor that processes the radar signal then looks for anything moving in that known manner. In one embodiment, the object is simply rotated at a known frequency.” “at a known frequency” is understood to mean a “defined” frequency, and implicitly from ‘rotation” this occurs about at least one axis as rotation requires such by its common definition. ) Regarding Claim 4-5, they recite that the movement pattern (rotation) is predefined by the traffic monitoring system or the vehicle respectively. Sterling (as used in claim 1 to teach the rotation of the reflectors) does not explicitly remark on where/how this known rotation is set/controlled. However from claim 18 (which depends on claims 14 and 15) of Sterling of the pre-grant publication it is recited/claimed that the processor of Sterling commands/control the rotation of the marker at known (predetermined frequency). i.e. Sterling teaches that the predetermine frequency of rotation is controlled/implemented via a computer but does not explicitly recite where this computer is located. In the context of Hoffman in the tracking system at least two processors are clearly identified. One is known From Hoffman [0067] + figures 1-4 element 19 is known to be an external processor (i.e. part of the “traffic monitoring system”) and the other is implicitly understood from [0013] “The vehicle is, for example, a passenger car or a truck. In the case where the vehicle has a driver assistance system, the vehicle preferably includes a number of sensor units designed to detect the vehicle's driving condition and to detect the vehicle's environment.” From this presence of a driver assistance system+ sensors one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the vehicle is equipped with an ECU (processor + memory) for performing these functions As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary to further modify Hoffman et al to have either the external control unit (element 19 of Hoffman) or the “driver assistance system” of the vehicle Hoffman to be the processor which controls/sets the predefined rotation of the reflective marker. Such a modification would be obvious as a simple rearrangement of parts (i.e. rearranging “where” the control of rotation occurs), as noted above Sterling teaches that known (predefined) rotation of the reflector is controlled via a processor (I.e. computer) but is mute as to the specific location (on a vehicle, on the reflector, external, etc) of the processor. Hoffman teaches explicitly at least two processors (control units) for controlling the devices of Hoffman, the first being the external control unit (element 19) and the second implicitly as part of the driver assistance system of the vehicle. Where the predefined rotation command comes from (from the external system or the vehicle) does not change the fundamental principles of operation. Thus implementing of the rotational control on either the vehicle’s control unit (claim 5) or the external control unit (claim 4) of Hoffman are straight forward application from the computer based rotational control of Sterling. Regarding Claim 6, modified Hoffman teaches “The method as claimed in in claim 1, wherein the control unit can determine a position of the vehicle using the signal characteristic.” (Hofmann [0007] Furthermore, a measuring arrangement for determining the position of a moving vehicle that includes a reflector is proposed. The measuring arrangement comprises a first optical detection device and a second optical detection device, each of which is configured to detect the position of the vehicle by means of a measuring beam emitted to the reflector and reflected back by the reflector. The first optical detection device is designed to transmit the detected position directly or indirectly to the second detection device. Alternatively or additionally, the second optical detection device is designed to transmit the detected position directly or indirectly to the first detection device. Furthermore, the first optical detection device is designed to track the position of the vehicle in a first monitoring area, and the second optical detection device is designed to track the position of the vehicle in a second monitoring area. The first monitoring area and the second monitoring area are different from each other and overlap in an overlap area.” ) Regarding Claim 7, modified Hoffman teaches “The method as claimed in in claim 1, wherein the reflector has a defined shape, wherein the shape influences the signal characteristic of the reflector.” (Sterling [0031] “In addition to selecting a calibration object with a high RCS (radar cross section), the object is made more detectable relative to other detected objects by moving it in a known manner. The processor that processes the radar signal then looks for anything moving in that known manner. In one embodiment, the object is simply rotated at a known frequency. The unique multiple tetrahedron shape is ideal for continually providing a known RCS response signal as the object is rotated, since multiple different tetrahedrons are visible as the object rotates. This provides the highest strength return when the corner reflector is facing the detector. It then decreases as the angle changes. This can be represented by a bell curve where the peak of the curve is when the reflector is perfectly pointing back to the detector. With the spinning motion, at the known frequency, the RCS response will be a sinusoidal curve at the same frequency.” Here sterling teaches that the RCS (signal characteristic) return from the marker changes in a defined pattern as it rotates based on the overall shape/design of the reflector. ) Regarding Claim 8, modified Hoffman teaches “The method as claimed in in claim 1, wherein two reflectors are arranged on the vehicle for identifying the vehicle.” ( (Hoffman [0066] here teaches multiple (two) reflectors and that the orientation of the vehicle is known in based on the determined positions of the multiple reflectors ) Regarding Claim 9, modified Hoffman teaches “The method as claimed in claim 8, wherein the two reflectors have a different signal characteristic from one another .” (Hoffman [0066] here teaches multiple (two) reflectors and that the orientation of the vehicle is known in based on the determined positions of the multiple reflectors ) Hoffman however does not explicitly teach that the reflectors have “different signal characteristics from one another”. (As modified in claim 1), Hoffman was modified to include the rotating of the reflectors as taught by Sterling. Sterling teaches that a frequency (of rotation) can vary for identifying a reflectors as compared to background noise (Sterling “[0008] In embodiments, the object is moved at o ne or more frequencies, such as by rotation. The sensor is a radar sensor in one embodiment. The object is detected by filtering at one or more frequencies, which includes running a Fourier Transform on a sequence of frames from the sensor to detect peaks at the known frequencies.”) Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to further modify Hoffman to set different rotational frequencies for the multiple reflectors as taught by Sterling. One would be motivated to implement different reflector frequencies (signal characteristics) in order to allow the system of Hoffman more easily distinguish the first and second markers from each other (S terling [0008] teaches the frequency of rotation is used for filtering a reflector out from background noise/other objects ) and thus more easily estimate the orientation of the overall vehicle. (Hofmann [0066] teaches using multiple markers to determine the orientation of the vehicle; thus implicitly in order to derive a given orientation from two (first and second marker) positions one would need to know which reading corresponds to which marker/the position of the markers relative to the vehicle in order to enable a certain orientation determination. The setting of different marker frequencies from sterling would thus provide the improvement of allowing for filtering/easy identification of which signal characteristic/position correspond to what marker. ) Regarding Claim 10, modified Hoffman teaches “The method as claimed in claim 8, further comprising generating information with the control unit on the basis of the signal characteristic of the two reflectors, where the information is at least one of: a direction of movement, a speed, and a length of the vehicle.” (Hoffman [0066] “As shown in Figures 1 to 4, the measuring arrangement 1 comprises a first measuring device, in particular optical detection device 3, and a second measuring device, in particular optical detection device 4. In the example shown, the first and second recording devices 3, 4 are each designed as tachymeters (first tachymeter 3 and second tachymeter 4). The measuring arrangement 1 also includes a marker 5 or a reflector 5 which is attached to the vehicle 2 (Fig. 2) Reflector 5, for example, is a prism. In addition to the reflector 5 shown, vehicle 2 may also have further reflectors, in particular exactly two or three. Preferably, a second reflector can be used to determine not only the position but also the orientation of vehicle 2.” Here Hoffman teaches using multiple reflectors in which the multiple reflectors (second) can be used to determine not only position but also orientation (i.e. direction of movement) of the tracked vehicle + from Hoffman [0061] “Figures 1 to 4 show a measuring setup 1. The measuring arrangement 1 is used to record and track the position P1, P2, P3 of a vehicle 2. Figures 2 to 4 show vehicle 2 at three exemplary positions P1, P2, P3.” + from figure 1-4, figure 3 is provided below, it can be seen that the trajectory is recorded as part of the tracking, i.e. the direction of movement of the vehicle is known in addition to its current position) PNG media_image1.png 522 486 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 11, modified Hoffman teaches “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the traffic monitoring system comprises at least one sensor, wherein the sensor is a camera.” (Hoffman [0006] “Preferably, the object being measured is a separate object attached to the vehicle, e.g. B. a marking, in particular a code and/or a color marking. Alternatively or additionally, the object being measured includes a separate reflective surface. The first and/or second measuring device includes, for example, a camera and, in particular, a computing unit connected to the camera. The camera and/or the processing unit is, for example, set up to identify the marker within a captured image.” Here Hoffman teaches a camera being used to identify a marking ) Regarding Claim 13, modified Hoffman teaches “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one reflector is arranged on the vehicle with a mounting device.” (Hofmann [0006] “Preferably, the object being measured is a separate object attached to the vehicle, e.g. B. a marking, in particular a code and/or a color marking. Alternatively or additionally, the object being measured includes a separate reflective surface.” Here hoffman teaches that the object (reflector) is “attached” i.e. mounted to the vehicle thus implicitly teaching some sort of “mounting device” ) Regarding Claim 14, modified Hoffman while teaching that the reflective marker is “attached” to the vehicle does not explicitly recite that this attachment is removable/temporary, i.e. does not teach “The method as claimed in claim 13, wherein the at least one reflector can be removably secured on the vehicle with the mounting device.” As such the difference between the prior taught prior art (Hoffman) and the claim invention of claim 14 is that the component (reflector) is separable from the vehicle at the current level of generality claimed (claim only recites that it is “separable” with a “mounting device” there are not details or limitations are to the structure or how this “mounting device” operates/attaches to the vehicle); as such in view of the quality is considered an obvious improvement in view of In re Dulberg; in the current case it is easily conceivable that the reflector should detachable in order to facilitate easier cleaning of the vehicle without having concerns about damaging the reflector. E.g. by detaching the reflector the vehicle could be put through a car wash without having to worry about scratching or damaging the reflector’s surface. Regarding Claim 16, modified Hoffman teaches “The method as claimed in claim 11, wherein the at least one reflector comprises a further distinguishing feature, wherein the further distinguishing feature can be identified by the camera.” (Hofmann [0006]” Preferably, the object being measured is a separate object attached to the vehicle, e.g. B. a marking, in particular a code and/or a color marking. Alternatively or additionally, the object being measured includes a separate reflective surface.) Regarding Claim 17, modified Hoffman teaches “The method as claimed in claim 16, wherein the further distinguishing feature is behind the reflector, wherein the further distinguishing feature is temporarily concealed by the movement pattern .” (Hoffman [0006] “Preferably, the object being measured is a separate object attached to the vehicle, e.g. B. a marking, in particular a code and/or a color marking. Alternatively or additionally, the object being measured includes a separate reflective surface.” Here Hoffman teaches that the tracking object on the vehicle includes both a marker (distinguishing mark) and a reflective surface; ) Hoffman however is mute as to the specific placement of the mark (distinguishing feature) compared to the reflector; from [0006] it is known they are separate, but their relative positioning is detailed on in the specification nor shown in the specification. That being said at the level of generality claimed “behind the reflector”; the difference between the teachings of the prior art (Hoffman) and the claimed invention is merely one of placement of the marker; this difference in placement is considered to be obvious as a design choice in view of In Re Japikse. Currently the claims do not make any clear indication or recite a function which depends on/is modified by the position (behind the reflector) of the marker compared to placing the marker elsewhere. While the claims recite that the marker is temporarily concealed by the reflector this quality is considered to occur at any given position near the marker depending on the positional relationship between the camera/transmitter-receiver and the reflector and the distinguishing mark (see in the 112(b) rejection of this claim above for an example of how the positional relationship changes how the marker is perceived by the camera as being (or not being) obscured by the distinguishing mark) ) which from [0041] is known to be/include a triple mirror; Hoffman as modified in claim 1, with the teaching of Sterling, rotates the triple mirror; thus implicitly as modified the cross-sectional surface/area which the triple mirror obscures on the vehicle from the point of view of camera of Hoffman. Thus the “temporarily concealed by the movement pattern” is understood to be a characteristic which flows from the rotating nature (Sterling) of the triple mirror (Hoffman). As such the two missing elements of the claim 17 “behind the reflector” and “wherein the further distinguishing feature is temporarily concealed by the movement pattern.” Are considered to be obvious/non-patentable difference in view of in Re Japikse, which holds that absent unexpected or difference in functioning due to a components position changes in position/placement of a known component are not patentable. And the “temporarily” obscuring is understood to be a quality which flows from the geometric relationship between a camera the reflector and the distinguishing mark which given Hoffman teaches that the external (camera) can be generally placed anywhere, and implicitly that the vehicle can change its orientation (and by extension the relative positioning of the distinguishing marker and the reflector as seen by the camera’s point of view) to be a quality which exists in at least some layouts of the camera-reflector-distinguishing mark system taught in Hoffman. Regarding Claim 18, modified Hoffman teaches “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the transmitter and the receiver are a radar unit.” ([0007] “The measuring arrangement comprises a first optical detection device and a second optical detection device, each of which is configured to detect the position of the vehicle by means of a measuring beam emitted to the reflector and reflected back by the reflector. “ here hoffman teaches using an optical measuring device (i.e. sensor) to detect the reflector + [0064] “…optical sensors such as cameras, radar systems, and lidar systems, which provide optical information,…” here teaches optical sensors includes radars, transmitters and receivers are implicit parts of a functioning radar system ) Regarding Claim 19, modified Hoffman teaches “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the reflector is a triple mirror.” (Hoffman [0041] “The reflector is, for example, a triple mirror reflector and/or a 360-degree prism.”) Regarding Claim 20, modified Hofmann is a system equivalent to the method claim 1, it has the same overall grounds of rejection, combination, and motivation as claim 1 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Hofmann as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of KR20220147046A, “Fusion method and system using radar and camera”, Kim Myeon Gun . Regarding Claim 12, while Hofmann teaches a camera and radar ([0006]-[0007] Hofmanns system includes both a camera and “optical detection device” ) it does not teach the “comparison” of information derived from the radar (signal characteristic) and the camera. Kim Myeon Gun teaches a sensor fusion system in which a radar derived object position (i.e. “information generated in the basis of the signal characteristic”) is compared with a camera derived position ([0006] “In the video surveillance method using a radar and a camera of a video surveillance system including a radar sensor, a camera module, and a controller according to an embodiment of the present invention, the controller receives image frames taken at different times from the camera module. generating, by the controller, a plurality of motion vectors in the image frames; identifying, by the controller, a plurality of objects in the image frames using the generated plurality of motion vectors; Selecting representative motion vectors from among the plurality of motion vectors using the identified plurality of objects, calculating, by the controller, magnitudes of the selected representative motion vectors, the controller in radar data generated from the radar sensor. Extracting Doppler velocities and directions of the plurality of recognized objects, wherein the controller compares magnitudes of the calculated representative motion vectors with the Doppler velocities, and compares directions of the calculated representative motion vectors with the radar data Comparing directions of the plurality of objects recognized in , and matching, by the controller, the plurality of objects identified from the image frames and the plurality of objects recognized from the radar data according to the comparison.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application to modify Hofmann to include the camera-radar data comparison and fusion as taught by Kim Myeon Gun in order to improve the tracking accuracy of the system. One would be motivated to implement the sensor fusion to improve the reliability of the monitoring/tracking system over various weather conditions. (Kim Myeon Gun [0002]-[0004] teaches that the combined radar-camera monitoring system has greater reliability under a range of weather conditions compared to just camera based tracking. ) 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Hofmann as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US 20130189456 A1, Verbeyst-Hayes . Regarding Claim 15, as rejected in claim 14 above, modified Hofmann in view of In re Dulberg renders obvious a detachable attachment of Hofmanns reflector. However this would still not teach a “magnet” as the mounting device specifically. Verbeyst-Hayes teaches an attachment system for a hood ornament in which the ornament is attached to the vehicle via a magnet (Abstract : “A removable hood ornament is described in the disclosure which has a decorative head having an upper portion configured to have a novelty shape and/or novelty outer design and a lower connector area on an outer surface of the decorative head having a head connector thereon; and a base having an upper portion having a base connector configured to mate with the head connector, the base having on a lower portion thereof a first magnet device capable of magnetic attraction to a hood surface comprising metal when the removable hood ornament is installed on a hood surface. The decorative head and base may also be unitary or affixed to one another, and the various removable hood ornaments may be part of an assembly including secondary magnets which are magnetically engaged by the first magnet when placed on opposite sides of a hood surface.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application to further modify Hofmann to include using a magnetic mounting system for allowing the attached reflector of Hofmann to be detachable from the vehicle. One would be motivated to implement the magnet mounting in order to allow for the reflector to be easily removed or attached form the vehicle without the need for external tools or mounting fasteners. Verbeyst-Hayes provides the ease of removal motivation in ([0003] “…drilling a hole in the hood if not already there, and/or using tools and other devices to remove and install the hood ornaments. Once installed, generally hood ornaments are not easily removed for the same reasons.”) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MICHAEL DUNNE whose telephone number is (571)270-7392. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:30-6:30. 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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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. /KENNETH M DUNNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/218,248 Page 2 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/218,248 Page 3 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/218,248 Page 4 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/218,248 Page 5 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/218,248 Page 6 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/218,248 Page 7 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/218,248 Page 8 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/218,248 Page 9 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/218,248 Page 10 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/218,248 Page 11 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/218,248 Page 12 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/218,248 Page 13 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/218,248 Page 14 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/218,248 Page 15 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/218,248 Page 16 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/218,248 Page 17 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/218,248 Page 18 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/218,248 Page 19 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/218,248 Page 20 Art Unit: 3669
Prosecution Insights