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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figure 2 shows boxes and components(21,23,23a,25), which do not include descriptive text labels. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 line 7 recites the limitation, “one or more integrated turn signal indicator lights of the vehicle”. This limitation was included in the amendment dated 12/17/2025, however, there is insufficient description in the specification to support this limitation. A review of the specification shows that the term “integrated” is utilized in describing the systems of the vehicle. There is not reference or recitation of the turn signal indicator lights being integrated. The claims and specification are deficient as to what aspect of the turn signal indicator lights are integrated, or what are they integrated with. Applicant appears to rely on this amendment to overcome the prior art of record. However, there is not an adequate description that would allow an understanding of the amended subject matter, so as to render the limitations patentable over the prior art of record.
ART REJECTION:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brink et al(USPGPUB 2025/0196760 A1) in view of Cronmiller et al(USPat 9,889,795 B1).
-- In considering claim 1, the claimed subject matter that is met by Levin includes:
1) vehicle communication unit that is configured to engage a computer system of a vehicle is met by the transceiver chip, which is in the form of a wireless communication interface, and is part of the motherboard(206)(see: Brink, sec[0068]);
2) a controller having a processor, said controller being communicatively linked to the vehicle communication unit is met by the processor(208) of the motherboard(see: sec[0068]);
3) wherein the controller is configured to selectively instruct the computer system of the vehicle to operate a vehicle turn signal light in a visual pattern is met by the motherboard(206) being in communication with LED board(214) which is configured to house multiple lights to communicate an indication of a user making a U-Turn(see: Brink, sec[0068]).
-Levin does not teach:
1) the controller having a memory.
Use of vehicle signaling systems which include a controller which incorporates a memory for storing lighting patterns is well known in the art. In related art, Cronmiller teaches a system for controlling multiple warning devices mounted on a vehicle to provide warning signals. In particular, Cronmiller teaches the use of controller(12) which connects to warning devices(14), and includes memory(12) that stores timing patterns in the memory(13) to alternat or select the signal outputs of the warning devices, as selected by the user via interface(30/31)(see: Cronmiller, column 7, lines 33-52).
Since the use of controller including a memory to store patterns for a vehicle turn signal light is well known, as taught by Cronmiller, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the controller(12) and memory(13) of Cronmiller, into the system of Brink, since this would have enhanced the select-ability of the signal indications of the system, by allowing a user to select different stored patterns as desired.
-- With regards to claim 2,
1) the controller is configured to detect a specific action or a specific vehicle setting enabled by a driver of the vehicle is met by the user of the system initiating the U-turn indicator by pressing a U-turn button(140)(see: Brink, sec[0067]).
-- With regards to claim 3,
1) the controller instructs the computer system of the vehicle to operate the turn signal light in the visual pattern in response to the detected action or setting is met by the motherboard(206), which has processor(208) coupled therewith, and in communication with LED board(214), causing the lights to activate based on the U-turn button(140) being pressed(see: Brink, secs[0067-0068]).
-- With regards to claims 4 and 14,
1) the visual pattern is provided by the controller to the computer system of the vehicle is met by the microprocessor of the motherboard controlling activation of the lights, based on the button(140) being pressed, thereby causing the lights to activate(see: Brink, secs[0067-0068]).
-- With regards to claims 5 and 16,
1) the visual pattern is different from a turn signal pattern stored within the computer system of the vehicle is met by the stored timing patterns in memory being different as selectable by a user of the system(see: Cronmiller, column 7, lines 33-52).
-- With regards to claim 6,
1) the controller is positioned within a main body enclosure is met by the motherboard(206) being housed in a first housing(202)(see: Brink, sec[0068]).
-- With regards to claim 7, the main body is configured to enclose the controller in a watertight manner is not specifically taught by Brink. However, the examiner takes Official Notice, that in the vehicle indicator art, use of Watertight housings, which enclose sensitive electronic equipment is notoriously well known. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a watertight housing into the housings of Brink, since this would have ensured protection of sensitive electronic equipment, including the components of the motherboard, such that elements such as water or dirt would not have affected the operation of the system by coming in contact with the components of the housing.
-- With regards to claim 8,
1) the vehicle communication unit being physically coupled to the controller via a communication cable is met by the line feeds(17,19,21, etc) which connects the transmitter(63) to various components in the circuitry of the system, as seen in figure 1C of Brink.
-- With regards to claim 9,
1) the vehicle communication unit is configured to receive operating power from the vehicle and the communication cable is configured to deliver the operating power to the controller is met by the power supply(12) providing power to components of the system via switch(16) and switch(24)(see: Brink, secs[0042-0043]).
-- With regards to claim 10,
1) the controller includes a power unit that is configured to regulate and distribute the operating power from the communication cable to each of the processor and the memory is met by the power supply(12) that distributes power to the components in the system(see: Brink, sec[0042]), and would have readily provided power to the memory, upon incorporation of the memory into the system of Brink, as discussed above.
-- Claims 11-20 recite subject matter that was addressed in the rejection of claims 1-10 above.
REMARKS:
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant is invited to contact examiner for a telephonic interview so as to provide better understanding of claimed subject matter, for the purpose of finding allowable imitations
Conclusion
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 DARYL C POPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2959. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/DARYL C POPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686