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
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: METHODS AND SYSTEM FOR VEHICLES COMPRISING A CONTROLLER TO EMIT LIGHTING BASED ON PASSENGER ATTRIBUTES
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims1-4 and 7-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6 and 13 of U.S. Patent No.12371,187. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claims 2-13 are rejected for their dependence on Claims 1 and 8.
Pending Claim
Patented Corresponding Claim
Reasons Explanations for Double Patenting
1
1
Both Claims recite a sensor for locating a passenger and directing the passenger towards a location being an entrance of the vehicle where a controller activates one or more lights to achieve the direction cue for a passenger. Patent Claim recites two locations and pending claim recites a plurality of lights disposed on or within the vehicle being the minor obvious distinction.
2
1
Pending Claim and Patent claim recite open door and entrance respectively which are equivalent.
3
6
Pending Claim recites directional indicator and patent claim recites an image that provides a direction.
4
6
One or more arrows is equivalent to directional indicator
7
10, 13
Both Claims recite that the passenger information is received by mobile device carried by passenger.
8
10
Both Claims recite a system with plurality of lights with sensor and controller changes the state of the light emitted being on/off or different colors based on passenger or identifier associated with passenger
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.
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.
Claims 2, 10 and 18 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the predetermined location" in line 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the landing pad" in line 3.
Claim 18 recites the limitation ”the at least a subset” in line 2
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
The applicant is respectfully advised that in examining a pending application, the claims are interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably convey. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 70 USPQ2d. 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004). MPEP § 2111.01.
Claims 1-5, 7, 10, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Salter (U.S. PG Publication No. 2019/0183697).
Regarding Claims 1, 8 and 14 Salter discloses in Figures 1-8, a lighting system for a vehicle 30 and inherently a method, comprising: a plurality of lights disposed on or within the vehicle (puddle lamp 64 can comprise multiple light sources or bulbs Para 0036), wherein each light of the plurality of lights is configured to be turned on or off, emit colored light, emit light at a plurality of intensities or change the lighting scheme (the lamp can emit different projections 70, 74, 76, 80 in different colors onto the ground Para 0036), or a combination thereof; one or more sensors (60 Bluetooth low level sensors 62 Para 0029); and a controller (computer 54) configured to execute a lighting scheme for the plurality of lights, wherein the lighting scheme is configured to convey a direction to a predetermined vehicle 30; wherein the controller 54 is further configured to: receive data indicating a location of a passenger or an identifier associated therewith (using mobile device 66); determine a configuration of the lighting scheme based on the location of the passenger; and execute the determined configuration of the lighting scheme so as to modify at least one of the plurality of lights from a first state or configuration to a second state or configuration different from the first state, wherein the at least one of the plurality of lights in the second state provides a directional cue indicating to the passenger the direction of travel towards the predetermined vehicle (the computer fields sensor data on location of passenger with mobile device and operates the puddle lamp 64 Para’s 0039-0040).
Regarding the claimed invention being “a method for controlling a lighting system for a vehicle to guide a passenger on a landing pad” as recited in the preamble of Claim 14, the applicant is advised that a recitation of the intended use of an invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). In this case, the patented structure of Salter was considered capable of performing the cited intended use.
Regarding Claim 2, Salter discloses in Figures 1-8, the lighting system of claim 1, wherein the predetermined location is an open door 34, 36, 38 of the predetermined vehicles 30.
Regarding Claim 3, Salter discloses the lighting system of claim 1, wherein the controller 54 is configured to execute the determined configuration of the lighting scheme by causing the at least one of the plurality of lights 64 to emit a projection 70, 74, 76, 80 that provides a directional indicator from the location of the passenger to the predetermined vehicle (the computer 54senses location of the mobile device 66 and guides the user to the vehicle 30).
Regarding Claim 4, Salter discloses in Figure 5, the light system of claim 3, wherein the projection corresponds to one or more arrows projected onto a surface (arrow guiding the user to enter vehicle Para 0047).
Regarding Claim 5, Salter discloses in Figure 8, the lighting system of claim 1, wherein the controller 54 is configured to execute the determined configuration of the lighting scheme by causing a sequential activation of the at least one of the plurality of lights to indicate the direction of travel from the location of the passenger to the predetermined vehicle (sequential first, second and third images are projected based on sensed data).
Regarding Claim 7, Salter discloses in Figures 1-8, the lighting system of claim 1, wherein the location of the passenger is determined based on data received from a mobile device 66 associated with the passenger.
Regarding Claim 10, Salter discloses in Figure 5, the lighting system of claim 8, wherein the controller is configured to execute the determined configuration of the lighting scheme by projecting an image on the road comprising at least one of: a directional arrow (Para 0047), at least one alphanumeric character, a flight or vehicle identifier, or a designated passenger symbol.
Regarding Claim 16-17, Salter discloses the method of claim 14, wherein executing the determined lighting scheme comprises illuminating a path or projecting an image (projecting symbols or shape projections 70, 74, 76, 80 on the landing pad between the passenger's location and the vehicle 30 associated with the identifier (being provided by the mobile device 66).
Regarding Claim 19, Salter discloses in Figures 3-6, the method of claim 14, wherein determining the lighting scheme comprises determining the lighting scheme based on identifying both the passenger's location and a presence of other passengers (Figure 6 users where projection 80 is emitted) or obstacles on the landing pad or road.
Regarding Claim 20, Salter discloses in Figures The method of claim 14, wherein determining the lighting scheme comprises: identifying a change of the location of the passenger with respect to the vehicle; and adjusting the lighting scheme based on the identified change (signal strength using BLE to mobile device 66 Para 0033).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The applicant is respectfully advised that in examining a pending application, the claims are interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably convey. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 70 USPQ2d. 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004). MPEP § 2111.01.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter in view of Kamhi (U.S. Patent No. 10, 343,593).
Regarding Claim 6, Salter does not disclose the lighting system of claim 1, wherein the controller 54 is configured to execute the determined configuration of the lighting scheme by causing an increase to the intensity of the at least one of the plurality of lights in response to the data indicating a decreasing distance of the passenger to the predetermined vehicle.
Kamhi discloses a controller for a vehicle light system that increases the light intensity as a person comes closer to vehicle to make them aware of objects in the immediate vicinity of the vehicle (Col 5, lines 45-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the controller increase the intensity of the projections if the user comes closer or reduces distance to the vehicle.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter in view of Brown (U.S. Patent No. 11,021,098).
Salter does not disclose activating the at least a subset of the plurality of lights in succession to create a pulsing effect indicating a direction toward the vehicle.3
Brown discloses a vehicle lighting system that emits in a pulsing effect indicating direction toward the vehicle based on the direction from which the user is approaching the vehicle Col 6, lines 55-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to configure the lighting system to pulse in sequence to guide the user from the direction from which they are approaching.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 11-13 and 15 are 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 as well as submit a terminal disclaimer to overcome the double patenting rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claims 9 and 15 the closest art does not teach or suggest the light system emitting a color corresponding the color of the passenger identifier.
Regarding Claims 11-13, the closest prior art does not teach or suggest alone or in combination a controller configured to receive a signal from a fault detection system or status indicating an inoperative condition or vehicle maintenance condition and control the lighting based on that to direct the passenger in particular manner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J MAY whose telephone number is (571)272-5919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-3:30pm.
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 (James) 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.
/ROBERT J MAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875