nht88-3.38 | NHTSA

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/09/88

FROM: MERRILL J. ALLEN

TO: PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

TITLE: AFFIDAVIT OF MERRILL J. ALLEN IN SUPPORT OF PATENT REAPPLICATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/30/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO SAMSON HELFGOTT, REDBOOK A33(4), STANDARD 108, VSA SECTION 108(A) 2(A); LETTER DATED 01/12/89 FROM SAMSON HELFGOTT TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 2989; REPORT DATED 06/02/87 FROM NATIONA L PUBLIC SERVICES RESEARCH INSTITUTE, AN EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF A REAR WARNING LIGHT ON THE FOLLOWING DISTANCE AND/OR BRAKING RESPONSE TIME (BRT) OF VEHICLES BEHIND; SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS H-85-30 ISSUED 11/05/85 BY NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BO ARD

TEXT: IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

In re Application of:

HAROLD A. CAINE Serial No.: 113,544 Filed October 26, 1987 For: AUTOMOTIVE WARNING AND BRAKE LIGHT ARRANGEMENTGroup Art Unit: 268 Examiner: Joseph A. Orsino September 6, 1988

AFFIDAVIT UNDER RULE 132

Hon. Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks Washington, D.C. 20231

SIR:

I, MERRILL J. ALLEN, hereby declare that:

1. I have been a Full Professor of Optometry, at the School of Optometry, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, since 1959 and taught many of the optometry courses offered by the School.

2. That I have had extensive experience in connection with highway safety, and particularly, in connection with the use of lights in connection with highway safety, and have been involved in projects relating to running lights, glare and driver visio n, the relative visibility of highway distress signals, the study of visibility of highway targets through clear and tinted automobile windshields, etc.

3. That attached herewith as Exhibit A is a copy of my biographical background, including my education, employment, research projects, practical experience, talks

and research papers, membership on committees, consultantships, and licenses.

4. That I have published about 206 articles covering clinical optometry, theoretical optometry, physiological optics, highway vision and motor vehicle design, etc., and that a copy of my publications list is herewith attached as Exhibit B.

5. That I am familiar with the invention of Harold A. Caine as is claimed in the above identified patent application and, specifically, the use of his high, centermounted combination warning and brake light arrangement for automotive vehicles, using in conjunction with a red light, an amber/yellow light which is kept on as a running light, both during acceleration and coasting and switching to the red light only upon braking of the vehicle.

6. That I have also been familiar with the type of devices cited by the Examiner as constituting the prior art and, specifically, a system having a combination of three lights, including a green running light during acceleration, a yellow light durin g coasting and a red light during braking.

7. That I have been advised that the Examiner has rejected the invention of Harold A. Caine based upon the fact that the Examiner is of the opinion that whether two or three colors are used and the particular color used would all have been an obvious matter of design choice.

8. That I do not agree with the Examiner's conclusion in this matter, and that my opinion is that the use of the yellow/amber lights as a running light instead of a green light is not a matter of obvious design choice and clearly brings about improve d results, and that the use of only two colors, specifically, the yellow/amber and the red

is not an obvious modification of the three light system using green, yellow and red, and also clearly brings about improved results.

9. That, specifically, a far sighted driver will see a green light clearest while a near sighted driver will see a red light clearest. The yellow light will be less affected by the driver's refractive error than either red or green, therefore, yello w/amber is more suited for use as a running light than is green.

The colors green and red are strong signal colors where as yellow is not. Thus, traditionally green has been used in signals as meaning "go". The purpose of a running light on the back of a vehicle is to signal "presence" and not "acceleration", ther efore, the use of yellow is importantly different than the use of green as a running light and should result in greater distance between motor vehicles.

At night, the average illuminant color encountered, consisting of tungsten head lamps, quartz halogen head lamps, tungsten street lamps, low and high pressure sodium vapor street lamps and high pressure mercury street lamps, is on average in the yello w part of the visible spectrum. The perceived distance of a running light is determined under low visibility conditions by binocular vision using stereopsis. Chromeostereopsis is a perception of colors at different distances due to chromatic aberration and slight optical element misalignments in the eye and/or due to prism incorporated in spectacle lenses. in the population various degrees and direction of chromeostereopsis exist. Hence, for about half the population green will be seen closer than yel low while for the remainder of the population green will be seen farther

away. Since the average illumination at night is yellowish, it follows that a yellow running light will not be subject to chromeostereopsis errors in distance judgment by any part of the driving population, whereas green could be subject to a significan t error in judgment of its distance. Accordingly, the use of the yellow/amber as a running light rather than using the green of the prior art as the running light is not an obvious substitution and does bring about clearly beneficial results in that mor e appropriate stopping distances would be provided.

Additionally, it is my opinion that yellow is recognized by the masses as providing an indication of warning. Green, on the other hand, has the effect of providing an indication of complete safety. A trailing driver seeing a green running light is p sychologically of the opinion that everything is safe and he may be lulled into a false sense of security. Should the forward vehicle suddenly change from an acceleration condition to a braking condition, the lights will switch quickly from green to red and the driver of the trailing vehicle may not psychologically react as fast as he could if he had not been viewing green. On the other hand, when he sees yellow/amber as a running light, psychologically he is already in a state of cautious awareness a nd will probably react more quickly to a sudden change to a red condition upon application of the brake in a forward vehicle.

10. That I additionally believe that using a two light system is less complex than a three light system. Using the green, yellow and red lights provides various combinations of lights that may become confusing during normal driving when the lights c ontinuously change from green to yellow upon application and removal of acceleration

pressure. This is especially the case if the yellow signal blinks as is provided in the prior art cited by the Examiner. By using a simplified system having only yellow/amber and red, the driver of the trailing vehicle can more easily respond to emerge ncy conditions and this should bring about an improved situation of safety.

11. That I further declare that all statements made of my own knowledge are true and that all statements made upon information and belief are believed to be true and further that willful, false statements and the likes, are punishable by fine or impr isonment or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and that willful, false statements may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent resulting therefrom.

Dated: Sept 9, 1988 Merrill J. Allen, ODPhD Professor Emeritus

DOCKET NO.: 8877 9/6/88

Interpretation ID: nht88-3.38