Interpretation ID: nht92-6.18

DATE: June 3, 1992

FROM: Steven Henderson -- Department of Psychology, McGill University

TO: Michael Perel -- Research and Development, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/29/92 from Paul J. Rice to Steven Henderson (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Thank you for your advice during our telephone conversation of May 19, and for your fax of May 20. The following letter, although originally written before our conversation, has been modified after consideration of the DOT regulations contained in your fax. I hope this letter contains sufficient information for evaluation by your legal department. Please excuse my reiteration of information from our previous conversation.

My name is Steven Henderson. I am a PhD student at McGill University, studying in the field of visual perception. I am requesting your assistance in advancing the examination of a U.S. patent application for a motorcycle hazard signalling device (filed the week of March 23, 1992). I also wish to know the opinion of your legal department regarding the extent to which DOT regulations apply to the signalling device.

About 4000 motorcyclists die every year in North America. I believe many of these deaths are due to the small size and low visibility of motorcycles, and, in collaboration with my coinventor David Kernaghan, have developed a device giving motorcyclists and bicyclists the capability of temporarily increasing their conspicuity to automobile drivers when circumstances warrant. The device is a flasher system that, in addition to signalling turns in the standard fashion, flicker the headlight, tail light, and signal lights at a rate of 10 flashes per second whenever the horn button is pressed. This flicker in the visual periphery of the car driver will initiate a reflexive saccade toward the motorcycle's location. (Vision researchers have found the human eye to be maximally responsive to a flash frequency of 10 Hz.) If the horn button is pressed while a turn is being signalled, the headlight flickers at a rate of 10 Hz, and only the actuated signal light gives out 2 Hz bursts of 10 Hz flicker. (My experience and those of other riders is that a motorcyclist is often aware of a developing dangerous situation one or two seconds before an approaching car driver sees the motorcycle, giving the device-equipped motorcyclist the opportunity to avoid an accident by signalling his or her presence to the car driver.) A photocell prevents the headlight from flickering at night. The device is also intended for use with automobile signal lights (but not automobile headlights).

The first question I wish to pose concerns the legality of the device under Section 571.108 S5.6 of the DOT regulations. On the face of it the device does appear to be proscribed by these regulations. However, the regulations are clearly intended to govern the characteristics of headlamp systems that are continuously modulated over extended periods of time, while my proposed system will be used only for very brief intervals (when the horn is sounding). The transitory nature of a signal such as a horn allows its use, even though the continuous blowing of the same horn would be considered a nuisance, and would surely be in violation of noise abatement bylaws. Indeed, the presence of a

working horn is mandated by law for all licensed vehicles, showing that a device that would be illegal if used continuously, can even be required by law if its utility as a warning device is recommended. Furthermore, the device does not violate the spirit of laws governing flashing lights and emergency vehicles, as its use would certainly not cause a motorcycle to be mistaken for an emergency vehicle. (The lights displayed at the front of an emergency vehicle are of a different color, flicker frequency, and intensity.) Finally, this DOT section may prohibit transient headlamp flicker without prohibiting transient signal light flicker at all.

The second question concerns the advancement of a patent application of the device. I strongly believe that in the interest of public safety, the device should be tested, and if found effective, should be made available to the motoring public as quickly as possible. However, as any competent technician or motorcycle mechanic could easily copy the device upon seeing it in use, I feel that patent protection must be secured before a test program is begun. Unfortunately, under normal circumstances the U.S. patent office takes about eighteen months to render a judgement after a patent application has been filed. If you and your legal department agree that the public interest is served by the advancement of examination in this case, I ask that immediate action be requested, in accordance with the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, section 708.01. The section states:

37 CFR 1.102.Advancement of examination.

(a) Applications will not be advanced out of turn for examination or for further action except as provided by this part, or upon order of the Commissioner to expedite the business of the Office, or upon filing of a request under paragraph (b) of this section ...

(b)Applications wherein the inventions are deemed of peculiar importance to some branch of the public service and the head of some department of the Government requests immediate action for that reason, may be advanced for examination.

Furthermore, the current U.S. GOVERNMENT MANUAL states that:

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was established to carry out a congressional mandate to reduce the mounting number of deaths, injuries, and economic losses resulting from auto accidents on the Nation's highways... (p.464)"

I believe that this congressional mandate indicates that the proposed invention should be "deemed of peculiar importance" to the NHTSA, and I therefore ask that the director of an appropriate department within the NHTSA make request for an advanced application under section 708.01 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, by supplying to me a letter addressed to the US Patent Office, which my patent attorney will forward, along with supporting documentation, to the U.S. Patent office.

I understand that such a letter is not an endorsement of the device by the NHTSA, and that the intent of the letter is solely to facilitate a research program to determine the device's lifesaving potential. Your letter would be communicated only to the U.S. Patent Office, and would never be used in a

publicity campaign or to in any way suggest that the device had received the endorsement of the NHTSA. I would certainly be willing to sign a letter to that effect.

Thank you very much for your interest in this matter. I look forward to your reply.