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 .
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.
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 1-2, 4-12, 14-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garvey (US 2019/0315268 A1), in view of Kim (KR 102314413 B1), Henry (US 2004/0227646 A1), and Farb (US 2015/0228066 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Garvey teaches or suggests a vehicle safety lighting system (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs [0003]-[0115]) comprising: a wireless control device (100) including a controller and a first wireless transceiver (e.g., of 100, as described in paragraph [0057]), the wireless control device configured to receive brake, left and right turn signals from a vehicle (e.g., paragraphs [0032] and Fig. 14, paragraphs [0086]-[0089]); and left and right elements (e.g. 604, 606, 608, or any light combination on any of the articles shown in Figs. 6-11 or Figs. 15 and 19-24) for an operator of the vehicle (see Figs. 6-11 or Figs. 15 and 19-24), each element including a Light Emitting Array (LEA) and a second wireless transceiver set (as described in paragraphs [0003]-[0115], e.g., paragraph [0081]), wherein the second wireless transceiver set is configured to communicate with the first wireless transceiver (as described in paragraphs [0071]-[0084]), wherein: each element is configured to receive a control signal from the wireless control device (as described in paragraphs [0057]-[0084]), the control signal causing the LEA of the armband to output a visual signal coordinated with the brake, left or right turn signals of the vehicle (as described in paragraphs [0057]-[0084]).
Garvey does not explicitly teach that said arm elements are armbands.
Kim teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-12) armbands for bicycle or motorcycle drivers (as shown in Figs. 1-12, and as outlined in the entire description).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Garvey and incorporated the teachings of said arm elements are armbands, such as taught or suggested by Kim, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving the effectiveness of the device (e.g., by providing a device with a larger display to communicate information to the vehicle operator), and/or increase or otherwise improve the utility and customizability of the device (e.g., by providing an embodiment in which the safety device can be used with existing equipment not having integrated illuminating devices).
The combined teachings of Garvey and Kim teach or suggest all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for each element is configured to be designated by a user as left or right.
Henry teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-15) each element is configured to be designated by a user as left or right (e.g., 100, paragraphs [0129]-[0137]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Garvey and incorporated the teachings of each element is configured to be designated by a user as left or right, such as taught or suggested by Henry, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of reducing the cost of manufacturing the device, and/or reduce the complexity of installing the device (e.g., by providing a configuration for the user to manually change the designation of the lighting device as needed).
The combined teachings of Garvey, Kim, and Henry teach or suggest all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for at least one armband is configured to receive a rear alert signal from the wireless control device and produce an alert light based on receiving the rear alert signal, and the wireless control device generates the rear alert signal based on detection of a trailing vehicle approaching a rear of the vehicle.
Farb teaches or suggests at least one device (e.g., 192) configured to receive a rear alert signal from the wireless control device (Fig. 2) and produce an alert light based on receiving the rear alert signal (paragraphs [0027], [0144], and [0156]), and the wireless control device generates the rear alert signal based on detection of a trailing vehicle approaching a rear of the vehicle (as described in paragraph [0156]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Garvey and incorporated the teachings of at least one armband is configured to receive a rear alert signal from the wireless control device and produce an alert light based on receiving the rear alert signal, and the wireless control device generates the rear alert signal based on detection of a trailing vehicle approaching a rear of the vehicle, such as taught or suggested by Farb, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving or increasing the utility, marketability, and safety features of the device (e.g., by providing an embodiment by which the armbands are also utilized to display a warning to the driver of a potentially hazardous rear-approaching vehicle).
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings of Garvey, Kim, Henry, and Farb teach or suggest, as outlined in claim 1 above, the wireless control device is a Bluetooth® control device (paragraphs [0042], [0050], [0057], and [0103] of Garvey).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings of Garvey, Kim, Henry, and Farb teach or suggest each armband light bar comprises light emitting devices of multiple colors (paragraph [0071] of Garvey).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings of Garvey, Kim, Henry, and Farb teach or suggest the wireless control device comprises a memory to store a Universal Unique Identifier (UUID) for each armband (paragraphs [0096]-[0101] of Garvey).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings of Garvey, Kim, Henry, and Farb teach or suggest the UUID for each armband includes a designation of left or right for each armband (paragraphs [0096]-[0101] of Garvey, e.g., the UUID of each article or lighting device would inherently categorize left and right articles as each ID is unique. Additionally, this feature is also taught by the combined teachings of Garvey and Henry outlined above).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings of Garvey, Kim, Henry, and Farb teach or suggest the wireless control device comprises a memory to store a left or right designation for each armband paired with the wireless control device (paragraphs [0096]-[0101] of Garvey, e.g., the devices utilize a nonvolatile data storage medium or memory to store a UUID in each receiver associated with a given article. The UUID stored in each article or lighting device would inherently categorize as left and right articles as each ID is unique. Additionally, this feature is also taught by the combined teachings of Garvey and Henry outlined above).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings of Garvey, Kim, Henry, and Farb teach or suggest the wireless control device comprises a memory to store a unique pair identifier for a pair of armbands previously connected to the wireless control device (paragraphs [0096] - [0101] of Garvey, e.g., the devices utilize a nonvolatile data storage medium or memory to store a UUID in each receiver associated with a given article. One connected or previously connected, the devices are associated with the UUIDs unless otherwise resynced or disassociated).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings of Garvey, Kim, Henry, and Farb teach or suggest a smartphone application, the application comprising a user interface to facilitate pairing of the armbands with the wireless control device (as described in paragraphs [0091] - [0103], and Figs. 15-17 of Garvey).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings of Garvey, Kim, Henry, and Farb teach or suggest the user interface of the application is configured to receive designation of one of the armbands as the right or left armband (as described in paragraphs [0091] - [0103], and Figs. 15-17 of Garvey, the rider can assign each indicator signal of the vehicle to a specific article, and thus, left and right designations for the armbands as modified in view of Kim above).
Regarding claim 11, Garvey teaches or suggests a method of a vehicle safety lighting system (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs [0003]-[0115]), the method comprising: receiving, via a wireless control device (100), brake, left and right turn signals from a vehicle (e.g., paragraphs [0032] and Fig. 14, paragraphs [0086]-[0089]), the wireless control device comprising a controller and a first wireless transceiver (e.g., of 100, as described in paragraph [0057]), transmitting, via the wireless control device, a control signal to each of left and right elements (e.g. 604, 606, 608, or any light combination on any of the articles shown in Figs. 6-11 or Figs. 15 and 19-24) worn by an operator of the vehicle (see Figs. 6-11 or Figs. 15 and 19-24), each element comprising a Light Emitting Array (LEA) and a second wireless transceiver set (as described in paragraphs [0003]-[0115], e.g., paragraph [0081]), wherein the second wireless transceiver set is configured to communicate with the first wireless transceiver (as described in paragraphs [0071]-[0084]), outputting, based on the control signal, a visual signal with the LEAs, wherein the visual signal is coordinated with the brake, left or right turn signals of the vehicle (as described in paragraphs [0057]-[0084]).
Garvey does not explicitly teach that said arm elements are armbands.
Kim teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-12) armbands for bicycle or motorcycle drivers (as shown in Figs. 1-12, and as outlined in the entire description).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Garvey and incorporated the teachings of said arm elements are armbands, such as taught or suggested by Kim, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving the effectiveness of the device (e.g., by providing a device with a larger display to communicate information to the vehicle operator), and/or increase or otherwise improve the utility and customizability of the device (e.g., by providing an embodiment in which the safety device can be used with existing equipment not having integrated illuminating devices).
The combined teachings of Garvey and Kim teach or suggest all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for each element is configured to be designated by a user as left or right.
Henry teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-15) each element is configured to be designated by a user as left or right (e.g., 100, paragraphs [0129]-[0137]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Garvey and incorporated the teachings of each element is configured to be designated by a user as left or right, such as taught or suggested by Henry, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of reducing the cost of manufacturing the device, and/or reduce the complexity of installing the device (e.g., by providing a configuration for the user to manually change the designation of the lighting device as needed).
The combined teachings of Garvey, Kim, and Henry teach or suggest all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for at least one armband is configured to receive a rear alert signal from the wireless control device and produce an alert light based on receiving the rear alert signal, and the wireless control device generates the rear alert signal based on detection of a trailing vehicle approaching a rear of the vehicle.
Farb teaches or suggests at least one device (e.g., 192) configured to receive a rear alert signal from the wireless control device (Fig. 2) and produce an alert light based on receiving the rear alert signal (paragraphs [0027], [0144], and [0156]), and the wireless control device generates the rear alert signal based on detection of a trailing vehicle approaching a rear of the vehicle (as described in paragraph [0156]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Garvey and incorporated the teachings of at least one armband is configured to receive a rear alert signal from the wireless control device and produce an alert light based on receiving the rear alert signal, and the wireless control device generates the rear alert signal based on detection of a trailing vehicle approaching a rear of the vehicle, such as taught or suggested by Farb, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving or increasing the utility, marketability, and safety features of the device (e.g., by providing an embodiment by which the armbands are also utilized to display a warning to the driver of a potentially hazardous rear-approaching vehicle).
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings of Garvey, Kim, Henry, and Farb teach or suggest, as outlined in claim 1 above, the wireless control device is a Bluetooth® control device (paragraphs [0042], [0050], [0057], and [0103] of Garvey).
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings of Garvey, Kim, Henry, and Farb teach or suggest each armband identifies itself to the wireless control device with a Universal Unique Identifier (UUID) (paragraphs [0096]-[0101] of Garvey, e.g., the UUID of each article or lighting device would inherently categorize left and right articles as each ID is unique. Additionally, this feature is also taught by the combined teachings of Garvey and Henry outlined above).
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings of Garvey, Kim, Henry, and Farb teach or suggest the UUID for each armband includes a designation of left or right for each armband (paragraphs [0096]-[0101] of Garvey, e.g., via the module identification codes, each being unique to teach article).
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings of Garvey, Kim, Henry, and Farb teach or suggest storing, via the wireless control device, a left or right designation for each armband paired with the wireless control device (paragraphs [0096]-[0101] of Garvey, e.g., via the module identification codes stored in the receiver of each article, each being unique to teach article).
Garvey does not explicitly teach activating the brake visual signal based on detection of vehicle deceleration above a brake light activation threshold.
Henry teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-15) activating the brake visual signal based on detection of vehicle deceleration above a brake light activation threshold (paragraphs [0064] and [0117]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Garvey and incorporated the teachings of activating the brake visual signal based on detection of vehicle deceleration above a brake light activation threshold, such as taught or suggested by Henry, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving or increasing the utility, marketability, and safety features of the device (e.g., by providing an embodiment by which the device automatically detects rapid deceleration of the vehicle and activates the warning light without the need for user input).
Regarding claim 17, the combined teachings of Garvey, Kim, Henry, and Farb teach or suggest storing, via the wireless control device a unique pair identifier for a pair of armbands previously connected to the wireless control device (paragraphs [0096] - [0101] of Garvey, e.g., the devices utilize a nonvolatile data storage medium or memory to store a UUID in each receiver associated with a given article. One connected or previously connected, the devices are associated with the UUIDs unless otherwise resynced or disassociated).
Regarding claim 19, the combined teachings of Garvey, Kim, Henry, and Farb teach or suggest controlling pairing of the armbands with the wireless control device via a smartphone application (as described in paragraphs [0091] - [0103], and Figs. 15-17 of Garvey).
Regarding claim 20, Garvey teaches or suggests a vehicle safety lighting system (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs [0003]-[0115]) comprising: a Bluetooth® control device (100; paragraphs [0042], [0050], [0057], and [0103]) comprising a controller and a Bluetooth® first wireless transceiver (e.g., of 100, as described in paragraph [0057]), the Bluetooth® wireless control device configured to receive brake, left and right turn signals from a vehicle (e.g., paragraphs [0032] and Fig. 14, paragraphs [0086]-[0089]); and left and right elements (e.g. 604, 606, 608, or any light combination on any of the articles shown in Figs. 6-11 or Figs. 15 and 19-24) for an operator of the vehicle (see Figs. 6-11 or Figs. 15 and 19-24), each element including a Light Emitting Array (LEA) and a second Bluetooth® wireless transceiver set (as described in paragraphs [0003]-[0115], e.g., paragraph [0081]), wherein the second Bluetooth® wireless transceiver set is configured to communicate with the Bluetooth® first wireless transceiver (as described in paragraphs [0071]-[0084]), wherein: at least one element is configured to receive a control signal from the Bluetooth® wireless control device (as described in paragraphs [0057]-[0084]), the control signal causing the LEA of the armband to output a visual signal coordinated with the brake, left or right turn signals of the vehicle (as described in paragraphs [0057]-[0084]).
Garvey does not explicitly teach that said arm elements are armbands.
Kim teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-12) armbands for bicycle or motorcycle drivers (as shown in Figs. 1-12, and as outlined in the entire description).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Garvey and incorporated the teachings of said arm elements are armbands, such as taught or suggested by Kim, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving the effectiveness of the device (e.g., by providing a device with a larger display to communicate information to the vehicle operator), and/or increase or otherwise improve the utility and customizability of the device (e.g., by providing an embodiment in which the safety device can be used with existing equipment not having integrated illuminating devices).
The combined teachings of Garvey and Kim teach or suggest all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for each element is configured to be designated by a user as left or right.
Henry teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-15) each element is configured to be designated by a user as left or right (e.g., 100, paragraphs [0129]-[0137]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Garvey and incorporated the teachings of each element is configured to be designated by a user as left or right, such as taught or suggested by Henry, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of reducing the cost of manufacturing the device, and/or reduce the complexity of installing the device (e.g., by providing a configuration for the user to manually change the designation of the lighting device as needed).
The combined teachings of Garvey, Kim, and Henry teach or suggest all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for at least one armband is configured to receive a rear alert signal from the Bluetooth® wireless control device and produce an alert light based on receiving the rear alert signal, and the Bluetooth® wireless control device generates the rear alert signal based on detection of a trailing vehicle approaching a rear of the vehicle.
Farb teaches or suggests at least one device (e.g., 192) configured to receive a rear alert signal from the wireless control device (Fig. 2) and produce an alert light based on receiving the rear alert signal (paragraphs [0027], [0144], and [0156]), and the wireless control device generates the rear alert signal based on detection of a trailing vehicle approaching a rear of the vehicle (as described in paragraph [0156]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Garvey and incorporated the teachings of at least one armband is configured to receive a rear alert signal from the Bluetooth® wireless control device and produce an alert light based on receiving the rear alert signal, and the Bluetooth® wireless control device generates the rear alert signal based on detection of a trailing vehicle approaching a rear of the vehicle, such as taught or suggested by Farb, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving or increasing the utility, marketability, and safety features of the device (e.g., by providing an embodiment by which the armbands are also utilized to display a warning to the driver of a potentially hazardous rear-approaching vehicle).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garvey, in view of Kim, Henry, and Farb, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Hsu (KR 20160100810 A) and Fu et al. (US 2025/0169755 A1, herein referred to as: Fu).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings of Garvey, Kim, Henry, and Farb teach or suggest all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for the wireless control device is incorporated into a light bar mounted on the vehicle.
Hsu teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-4) a wireless control device (3) is incorporated into a light bar mounted on the vehicle (as shown in Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Garvey and incorporated the teachings of the wireless control device is incorporated into a light bar mounted on the vehicle, such as taught or suggested by Hsu, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving or increasing the utility, marketability, and safety features of the device (e.g., by providing an additional safety light for the cyclist, and the article worn by the rider will further increase visibility of the cyclist, and/or increase the functionality of the lighting system, and/or reduce the complexity of installing the device by providing a feature that simultaneously places a lighting device and control module).
The combined teachings of Garvey, Kim, Henry, Farb, and Hsu teach or suggest all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for a unique pair ID is stored in the left and right armbands so that the system identifies the left and right armbands as a coordinated left-right pair.
Fu teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-9B) a unique pair ID is stored in the left and right garments so that the system identifies the left and right garments as a coordinated left-right pair (as described in paragraph [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Garvey and incorporated the teachings of a unique pair ID is stored in the left and right armbands so that the system identifies the left and right armbands as a coordinated left-right pair, such as taught or suggested by Fu, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving or increasing the utility, marketability, and safety features of the device (e.g., by providing a feature to simplify the identification of pair lighting devices to be worn with the control module).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garvey, in view of Kim, Henry, and Farb, as applied to claim 11 above, and in further view of Hsu.
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings of Garvey, Kim, Henry, and Farb teach or suggest all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for the wireless control device is incorporated into a light bar mounted on the vehicle.
Hsu teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-4) a wireless control device (3) is incorporated into a light bar mounted on the vehicle (as shown in Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Garvey and incorporated the teachings of the wireless control device is incorporated into a light bar mounted on the vehicle, such as taught or suggested by Hsu, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving or increasing the utility, marketability, and safety features of the device (e.g., by providing an additional safety light for the cyclist, and the article worn by the rider will further increase visibility of the cyclist, and/or increase the functionality of the lighting system, and/or reduce the complexity of installing the device by providing a feature that simultaneously places a lighting device and control module).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garvey, in view of Kim, Henry, and Farb, as applied to claim 11 above, and in further view of Anselm et al. (US 2024/0349027 A1, herein referred to as: Anselm).
Regarding claim 18, neither Garvey, Kim, Henry, nor Farb explicitly teach using radio signal strength (RSSI) to distinguish between armbands to be connected to the wireless control device; and determining, based on RSSI received from a plurality of prospective armband sets, which set to pair.
Anselm teaches or suggests (paragraph [0063]) a commissioning of load control system wherein RSSI of beacon message is used to determine which devices are associated with which signal (as recited in paragraph [0063], e.g., the device select fixture for configuration and/or control based on indication of signal strength. For example, selecting fixture for configuration and/or control based on a determination that the optical signal was the highest signal strength).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Garvey and incorporated the teachings of using radio signal strength (RSSI) to distinguish between armbands to be connected to the wireless control device; and determining, based on RSSI received from a plurality of prospective armband sets, which set to pair, such as taught or suggested by Anselm, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving or increasing the utility, marketability, and security features of the device (e.g., by providing a cost-effective feature to provide real time monitoring, positioning, and asset tracking of the lighting devices).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: please see US-20180312105-A1 to Bartell, US-20100253501-A1 to Gibson, and US-20100207749-A1 to Kao, pertinent to various features as recited in claims 1-20.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Colin J Cattanach whose telephone number is (571)270-5203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 AM - 6:30 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, 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.
/COLIN J CATTANACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights