Signals and indicators – Vehicle – Curb feelers
Reexamination Certificate
2003-01-22
2004-11-09
Gutierrez, Diego (Department: 2859)
Signals and indicators
Vehicle
Curb feelers
C116S03500A, C033S264000, C248S133000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06814023
ABSTRACT:
COSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
Not applicable.
FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT
Not applicable.
REFERENCE TO A MICROFICHE APPENDIX
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
1. Field of the Invention
The present invention generally relates to a vehicle parking guide apparatus adapted to provide the operator of a vehicle with a visual indication when such vehicle reaches a predetermined position. More specifically, this invention relates to an apparatus having a guidepost configured to be engaged by the vehicle being parked, and thereafter pivot about a fixed base to provide a visual indication that the vehicle has reached the predetermined position.
2. Description of the Related Art
It is well known in the art that vehicle parking guides facilitate efficient utilization of an available space to accommodate the maximum number of vehicles therein and/or to optimize the remaining area such that it can be used for other purposes. Additionally, parking guides are known to reduce the risk of damage to a vehicle by indicating when a desired position has been reached such that the operator is less likely go beyond the desired position and accidentally come into contact with walls, other vehicles, etc.
The prior art has suggested various devices for assisting an operator who is parking a vehicle. For example, Ross, U.S. Pat. No. 2,854,942 and Brauer, U.S. Pat. No. 3,874,322 disclose a ball suspended from the garage ceiling with a string. The effective length of the string is adjustable such that the ball extends to a position adapted to be engaged by the windshield of a specific vehicle. The ball is further located such that when contacted by the windshield, the operator knows the vehicle is properly positioned in the garage.
Although the devices disclosed in Ross and Brauer are simple in structure, they do not provide a clear visual signal to the driver. As the vehicles head lights extend beyond the ball and therefore do not necessarily provide illumination therefor, it may be difficult to identify initial engagement of the ball. Furthermore, the Ross and Brauer disclosures do not provide a degree of proximity indication in order that the driver may choose to place the vehicle at a selected safe distance from the wall. Finally, the Ross and Brauer devices are not portable or adjustable such that a single device cannot accommodate multiple enclosures or multiple locations within a single enclosure.
Another approach for providing a parking guide apparatus generally involves an electronic signaling device and an actuation switch therefor. An example of this approach is disclosed by Brancale, U.S. Pat. No. 3,493,925, which teaches a magnetic proximity switch mounted on the rear wall of a garage. The magnetic attraction between the proximity switch and an approaching vehicle causes a contact element to pivot and thereby complete a circuit such that a lamp bulb is illuminated. The illumination of the lamp bulb indicates that sufficient forward progress has been made into the garage and that proper positioning of the vehicle can be effected by backing up until the light is extinguished.
The lamp bulb taught by Brancale provides a clear and unambiguous visual signal to the driver, and in that respect represents an improvement over the teachings of Ross and Brauer. Brancale, however, suffers from problems attributable to its excessive complexity. The complicated mechanism of operation and corresponding numerous parts drive-up production cost and give rise to additional failure modes such that the apparatus becomes unnecessarily expensive and prone to failure. Additionally, a malfunction of the Brancale electronic device is not necessarily readily apparent and potentially gives rise to a false sense of security. If the electronic device malfunctions, the operator may continue advancing the vehicle well beyond the point of engagement with the lever while expecting the lamp bulb to eventually become illuminated. In fact, a malfunctioning parking guide device providing a false sense of security is frequently worse than having no parking device whatsoever. Furthermore, Brancale and other similar devices do not provide for both longitudinal and lateral positioning of a vehicle, and are not configured to indicate the degree of proximity to a wall. Finally, the Brancale parking device consumes a large section of wall space which is particularly significant in the context of a private garage wherein available space is frequently a premium.
Ryan, U.S. Pat. No. 4,341,488, discloses a guidepost device for parking vehicles. The guidepost device includes a flexible rod having one end secured to a base member, and an opposite end attached to an indicator. The base member is adhesively fixed to the floor of a garage. The flexible rod is of such a length that the indicator is positioned above the hood of the vehicle within easy view of the driver. The indicator includes a battery, a light and an electronic chip to create a flashing effect. The indicator further includes a switch adapted to activate the flashing light when the flexible rod is angularly disposed by a vehicle. When the indicator light is illuminated, the vehicle operator backs up enough to turn off the light, at which time the vehicle is correctly positioned.
Ryan discloses a much simpler device than that disclosed by Brancale, and accordingly the Ryan device is likely to be less expensive and less prone to failure. The Ryan device does, however, rely on a battery operated electric device which inherently gives rise to additional failure modes such as a discharged battery, a defective chip or a burned out light. Furthermore, a malfunction of the Ryan device is not necessarily readily apparent and potentially gives rise to a false sense of security. If the device disclosed by Ryan malfunctions, the operator may continue advancing the vehicle well beyond the point of engagement with the flexible rod while expecting the lamp bulb to eventually become illuminated. Additionally, the guidepost device is fixed to the floor in a semi-permanent manner such that it is not portable or adjustable. Accordingly, a single guidepost cannot accommodate multiple vehicles within the same enclosure, and cannot accommodate a different size vehicle in a single parking space. Finally, the Ryan disclosure does not provide a degree of proximity indication in order that the driver may choose to place the vehicle at a selected safe distance from the wall.
Kennedy, U.S. Pat. No. 5,507,245, discloses a device adapted to provide an indication of the clearance between a vehicle and a wall surface. The clearance indicating device includes a support frame mounted to a wall surface, and a contact rod member pivotally mounted to the support frame. A lower portion of the contact rod member is biased to extend outward into the path of the vehicle and is pivoted thereby. An upper portion of the contact rod member increasingly pivots away from the support frame as the vehicle approaches the wall. A pull cord has one end secured to the upper portion of the rod member and its other end is secured to one end of a sliding rod member. A tension cord mounted to the sliding rod member has one free end connected to a swing arm member that is pivotally mounted in a cantilever manner on the support frame. The swing arm member will swing outward from the support frame by an amount proportional to the distance between the vehicle and the wall.
Kennedy addresses several of the aforementioned problems associated with conventional vehicle parking guides. For example, the Kennedy device is mechanically actuated and therefore not dependent upon a power supply for operation, and is adapted to indicate the degree of proximity to a wall. Unfortunately, however, the Kennedy invention suffers from many of the problems identified with respect to the Brancale disclosure. Specifically, Kennedy is overly complex, includes a complicated mechanism of operation with numerous parts, and is therefore unnecessarily expensive and prone to failure. Additionally, a malfunction of the Kennedy devic
Courson Tania C.
VanOphem & VanOphem P.C.
LandOfFree
Vehicle parking guide and signaling apparatus does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Vehicle parking guide and signaling apparatus, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Vehicle parking guide and signaling apparatus will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3350157