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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones [US 8840263] in view of Proud [US 2016/0335632].
As to claim 1, Jones discloses a wearable safety lighting system [see figure 1], comprising: a belt portion [for example 11, figure 1] extending in a longitudinal direction and having a central longitudinal axis [see figure 1, also shown in figure 5a amongst other figures], and one or more LED light sources positioned on the belt portion [72, figure 5a, for example, see also column 6, lines 14-18] and centered on the belt portion [see figures].
Jones fails to explicitly disclose the belt portion having a cut out portion that also extends in a longitudinal direction, the cut out portion being centered on the belt portion along the central longitudinal axis, and electronic components/LEDs positioned in the cutout.
Proud teaches a configuration wherein a belt portion [11, figure 1H] having a cut out portion that also extends in a longitudinal direction [this is the portion of 11 which allows for 17, 19, and other internal structures shown in figure 1H to be held], the cut out portion being centered on the belt portion along the central longitudinal axis [see figures 1c, 1d] for holding electronic components [see 15, figure 1G, see also figure 1H] was well known.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement the cutout as taught by Proud with the belt and LEDs as electronic components as taught by Jones, in order to allow for the light sources to emit light clearly and unobstructed from a mounted position on the belt [see Jones, column 6, lines 60-64, see also column 9, lines 50-54].
As to claim 3, Jones discloses the wearable safety lighting system of claim 1, wherein the one or more LED light sources are connected in an LED lighting strip [see 74, figure 5a], the LED lighting strip having a longitudinal length and a height [see figure 5a, see also figure 1]. Jones fails to explicitly disclose wherein the height of the LED light source is not greater than a height of an inside edge of the cut out portion of the belt portion. Proud teaches such a configuration was well known [see 11 and 19, figure 1H]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement the cutout as taught by Proud with the Belt as taught by Jones, in order to allow for the light sources to emit light clearly and unobstructed from a mounted position on the belt [see Jones, column 6, lines 60-64, see also column 9, lines 50-54].
As to claim 4, Jones fails to explicitly disclose wherein the longitudinal length of the LED lighting strip is shorter than a longer longitudinal length of the cut out portion of the belt portion. Proud teaches such a configuration was well known [see 11 and 19, figure 1H]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement the cutout as taught by Proud with the Belt as taught by Jones, in order to allow for the light sources to emit light clearly and unobstructed from a mounted position on the belt [see Jones, column 6, lines 60-64, see also column 9, lines 50-54].
As to claim 6, Jones fails to explicitly disclose wherein the belt portion comprises silicone. Proud teaches the use of silicone for belts was well known [see title, abstract, paragraph 3]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to use silicone, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945). In this instance, silicone is known for its flexibility in use as well as ease of manufacture [see Jones, column 9, lines 50-54].
As to claim 7, Jones discloses the wearable safety lighting system of claim 1, wherein the one or more LED light sources emit light in a 360 degree radius around a wearer of the wearable safety lighting system [see figures 1, 2].
As to claim 8, Jones discloses a wearable safety lighting system [see figures] comprising: a belt portion [11, figure 1] extending in a longitudinal direction and having a central longitudinal axis [see figure 1], one or more LED light sources [72, for example, see figure 5a] positioned inside the belt portion [see figure 5a, 1]; and a computer system [this is the box in figure 4] attached to the belt portion and in communication with the one or more LED light sources [via driver 60 and 61], comprising: one or more processors [CPU, 52]; and one or more computer-readable hardware storage devices [53] that store instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the computer system to selectively display, on the one or more LED light sources, a lighting regime comprising at least one color [see column 7, lines 44 – column 8, line 15].
Jones fails to explicitly disclose the belt portion having a cut out portion that also extends in a longitudinal direction, the cut out portion being centered on the belt portion along the central longitudinal axis, the LED light sources being positioned in the cut out.
Proud teaches a configuration wherein a belt portion [11, figure 1H] having a cut out portion that also extends in a longitudinal direction [this is the portion of 11 which allows for 17, 19, and other internal structures shown in figure 1H to be held], the cut out portion being centered on the belt portion along the central longitudinal axis [see figures 1c, 1d] and housing electronic components [see 15, figure 1G, see also figure 1H] was well known.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement the cutout as taught by Proud with the belt and LEDs as electronic components as taught by Jones, in order to allow for the light sources to emit light clearly and unobstructed from a mounted position on the belt [see Jones, column 6, lines 60-64, see also column 9, lines 50-54].
As to claim 9, Jones discloses the wearable safety lighting system of claim 8, wherein the lighting regime comprises lighting only a portion of the one or more LED light sources [see column 7, line 44 – column 8, line 15, especially column 8, lines 13-15].
As to claim 10, Jones discloses the wearable safety lighting system of claim 8, wherein the lighting regime comprises alternating two or more colors sequentially [see column 7, line 44 – column 8, line 15, especially column 8, lines 13-15].
As to claim 11, Jones discloses the wearable safety lighting system of claim 8, wherein the lighting regime comprises a color selected from a group consisting of red, yellow, green, blue, white, and black [see column 7, line 44 – column 8, line 15, especially column 8, lines 13-15].
As to claim 12, Jones discloses the wearable safety lighting system of claim 8, wherein the lighting regime comprises a brightness level in a range from 0% to 100% [see column 7, line 44 – column 8, line 15, especially column 8, lines 13-15].
As to claim 13, Jones discloses the wearable safety lighting system of claim 8, wherein the computer system selectively displays, on the one or more LED light sources, the lighting regime based on a wearer input [see column 7, line 44 – column 8, line 15, especially column 8, lines 13-15, see also 54, figure 4].
As to claim 14, Jones discloses a wearable safety lighting system [see figure 1] comprising: a belt portion [11] extending in a longitudinal direction and having a central longitudinal axis [see figures], and one or more LED light sources [72, figure 5a], one or more sensors [57, figure 4] connected to the belt portion; a computer system [all structures in figure 4 not 57], the computer system being attached to the belt portion and in communication with the one or more LED light sources [via drivers 55 and 56 in figure 4], comprising: one or more processors [CPU 52]; and one or more computer-readable hardware storage devices [53] that store instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the computer system to: retrieve data from the one or more sensors; determine, based on the data, a corresponding lighting regime; and display, on the one or more LED light sources, the corresponding lighting regime [see column 7, line 44 through column 8, line 15].
Jones fails to explicitly disclose the belt portion having a cut out portion that also extends in a longitudinal direction, the cut out portion being centered on the belt portion along the central longitudinal axis; the one or more LED light sources being positioned inside the cut out portion of the belt portion.
Proud teaches the configuration wherein the belt portion having a cut out portion that also extends in a longitudinal direction [this is the portion of 11 which allows for 17, 19, and other internal structures shown in figure 1H to be held], the cut out portion being centered on the belt portion along the central longitudinal axis [see figures 1c, 1d]; an electronic components being positioned inside the cut out portion [see 15, figure 1G, see also figure 1H] of the belt portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement the cutout as taught by Proud with the belt and LEDs as electronic components as taught by Jones, in order to allow for the light sources to emit light clearly and unobstructed from a mounted position on the belt [see Jones, column 6, lines 60-64, see also column 9, lines 50-54].
As to claim 16, Jones discloses the wearable safety lighting system of claim 14, wherein the data is battery percentage data, and the corresponding lighting regime comprises lighting up a percentage of the one or more LED light sources that corresponds to the battery percentage data [see column 8, lines 16-25].
As to claim 17, Jones discloses the wearable safety lighting system of claim 14, wherein the data is temperature data, and the corresponding lighting regime comprises lighting up each LED in the one or more LED light sources a color that corresponds to the temperature data [see column 7, line 44 through column 8, line 15].
As to claim 19, Jones discloses the wearable safety lighting system of claim 14, wherein the data is movement data that corresponds to a motion of the wearable safety lighting system being tapped by a wearer, and the corresponding lighting regime comprises activating the one or more LED light sources from a deactivated state [see column 7, line 44 through column 8, line 15].
As to claim 20, Jones discloses the wearable safety lighting system of claim 14, wherein the data is movement data that corresponds to a motion of the wearable safety lighting system being tapped by a wearer, and the corresponding lighting regime comprises deactivating the one or more LED light sources from an activated state [see column 7, line 44 through column 8, line 15].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones [US 8840263] in view of Proud [US 2016/0335632] and Cosky [US 2012/018197].
As to claim 2, Jones fails to explicitly disclose wherein the belt portion further comprises a magnetic locking mechanism on a first end of the belt portion comprising: a magnetic engaging mechanism on a first end of the belt portion; and one or more magnets, each magnet in the one or more magnets being aligned along the central longitudinal axis of the belt portion, each magnet in the one or more magnets being placed such that each magnet defines a belt length when engaged with the magnetic engaging mechanism.
Cosky teaches configuring a the belt portion with a magnetic locking mechanism on a first end of the belt portion [14] comprising: a magnetic engaging mechanism on a first end of the belt portion [see abstract]; and one or more magnets [20], each magnet in the one or more magnets being aligned along the central longitudinal axis of the belt portion [see figure 2], each magnet in the one or more magnets being placed such that each magnet defines a belt length when engaged with the magnetic engaging mechanism [see figure 2] was well known.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the magnetic fastening system of Cosky, in order to provide for variation in belt length when in use [see Jones, column 9, lines 50-54].
Examiner notes that this rejection could be made without Cosky, and instead using Proud to teach such magnets, however, in Proud, the magnetic engagement mechanism on a first end of the belt would be mapped as one of the end magnets shown in figure 1A of Proud (and other magnets mapped to the one or more magnets which are placed to define a belt length when engaged), and while this reading does read on the claim language and provides a valid 103 rejection (using the same rationale to combine as Cosky), the addition of Cosky provides a more similar structural mapping for applicant’s disclosure.
Claims 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones [US 8840263] in view of Proud [US 2016/0335632] and Asbeck [US 2024/0023643].
As to claim 15, Jones discloses the wearable safety lighting system of claim 14, wherein the one or more sensors are selected from a group consisting of microphone, thermometer, accelerometer [see column 7, line 44 though column 8, line 15], but fails to explicitly disclose a photodiode. Asbeck teaches using photodiodes to provide ambient lighting data to a wearable safety system was well known [see paragraph 13]. It would have been obvious to implement the ambient light sensor of Asbeck with the lighting system of Jones, in order to provide a light source which is visible in different levels of light and at different times of day [see Jones, column 9, lines 50-54].
As to claim 18, Jones fails to explicitly disclose wherein the data is light data, and the corresponding lighting regime comprises a brightness that corresponds to the light data. Asbeck teaches using photodiodes to provide ambient lighting data to a wearable safety system was well known [see paragraph 13, see also Jones, column 7, line 44 through column 8, line 15]. It would have been obvious to implement the ambient light sensor of Asbeck with the lighting system of Jones, in order to provide a light source which is visible in different levels of light and at different times of day [see Jones, column 9, lines 50-54].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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: as to claim 5, Jones, and the other prior art of record, fail to disclose wherein only a first end of the LED lighting strip is attached to the cut out portion such that the LED lighting strip is able to longitudinally move within the cut out portion of the belt portion, in combination with other claimed elements and limitations. None of the prior cited art teaches or discloses such a configuration, including a belt with a cut out portion, combined with an LED light source which has a height shorter than the cutout, wherein only a first end of the LED lighting strip is attached to the cut out portion such that the LED lighting strip is able to longitudinally move within the cut out portion of the belt portion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sutton, Mitchell, White, Zorn, and Ernst [see PTO-892] all teach alternative embodiments of wearable safety garments which include lights and lighting units.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYON GYLLSTROM whose telephone number is (571)270-1498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Jong-Suk Lee can be reached at 571-272-7044. 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.
/BRYON T GYLLSTROM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875