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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed 6 January 2026.
Claims 1, 7, 8, and 22 have been amended. The examiner notes that the status identifier of claim 9 indicates that it is amended, however it appears claim 9 has not been amended, but rather the status identifier was carried over from the last set of amendments filed 15 September 2025.
Claims 2, and 10-21 have been cancelled
Claims 27 has been added.
Claims 1, 3-9 and 21-27 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is FINAL.
Response to Amendments and Remarks
Specification
The specification was objected to because of informalities. Applicant has amended the specification to overcome the objections to the specification. Accordingly, the objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 was objected to because of informalities. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 6 January 2026, with respect to the objection of claim 22 has been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the objection of claims 1-14 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-9 and 21-26 were 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.
The Applicant has amended the claims to overcome or render moot each of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph,. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-9 and 21-26 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and § 103
Claim(s) 1-5, 7 and 25 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0247719 hereinafter “Huang”).
Claim(s) 1 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamashita et al. (US Patent No. 5,781,119, hereinafter “Yamashita”).
Claim(s) 6, 9, and 21-24 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of (Hole US Pub. No. 2008/0189038, hereinafter “Hole”).
Claim(s) 4, 8, 9, 24, and 26 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Jacobs (US Pub. No. 2003/0123930, hereinafter “Jacobs”).
Applicant’s arguments in view of the amendments, see page 8-9 filed 6 January 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5, 7 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Huang and with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Yamashita have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Huang and Hole et al.
Applicant's arguments filed 6 January 2026 regarding the rejection of claim 8 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner notes while there is a new grounds of rejection for claim 1 from which claim 8 depends, the examiner continues to rely upon Jacobs for the concentration teaching.
Specifically, Applicant argues:
The disclosure from Jacobs (paragraph [0088]) relied on in the Office Action in the rejection of claim 8 discusses the loading of magnetic particles in a polymeric matrix (or binder 27), which may be applied "onto a pavement surface," e.g., see paragraphs [0012] and [0045] and FIG. 2. Jacobs does not disclose a concentration of the magnetic particles in a surface of a roadway.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the examiner notes that claim 8 has been rejected with the combination of Huang, Hole and Jacobs. At least Hole and Jacobs teach that the magnetic or magnetized material may be embedded into the surface of the roadway (see at least Hole [0051] “To illustrate the distance estimation, let us assume that the magnetic marking formed on or in the infrastructure takes the form of a continuous magnetic strip,” See also Hole [0098] “ The strip can also be deposited in the infrastructure, by providing a shallow recess for this purpose, so that it can then be covered with another material to fill in the recess to mask the paint and make the magnetic strip more durable.” See also Jacobs [0008-0010] “[0008] One magnetic marking system includes a series of magnetic "nails" embedded in the roadway. …[0009] Another magnetic marking system employs a magnetic paint to produce magnetic stripes on the roadway…. [0010] Some previously known magnetic guidance systems have employed materials embedded within a roadway, such as disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,609,678 and 3,714,625. The polymer-based magnetic materials disclosed are resilient and flexible, such as nitrile and silicone rubber, and plasticized PVC. Resilient refers to recovering to substantially the original shape after removal of a deformation force. The '678 patent discloses, in one embodiment, a polymeric magnetic tape or sheet that is "either inserted edgewise in a narrow channel or slot or laid flat in a more shallow channel cut in the roadway." (col. 3, lines 4-6). This patent further states that magnets may also be embedded within the pavement of the roadway instead of in an open channel. (col. 3, lines 31-32). A flux sensor is mounted on a vehicle that travels over the roadway The sensor can generate an electric signal in response to the magnetic medium if the magnetic field is sufficiently strong to be sensed. …” ).
Further, the examiner has relied upon Jacobs for material used for the magnetic marking with a concentration in the surface ranging from about 0.25 vol.% to about 10 vol.%. (see at least Jacobs [0088] “The magnetic particles are generally dispersed in the polymeric matrix at a high loading. The magnetic particles constitute at least 1 volume percent of the magnetic layer, while it is difficult to include particles in an amount constituting more than about 75 volume percent of the material. Preferably, the magnetic pavement markers have a binder comprising at least 30 volume percent of magnetic particles. A preferred loading range would be about 30 to 60 volume percent, more preferably from about 45 to about 60 volume percent. To obtain the highest remanent magnetization, the particles preferably are substantially domain-size, anisotropic particles, and there preferably is substantially parallel alignment of preferred magnetic axes of a sufficient number of the particles so as to make the magnet material itself anisotropic.”).
As noted in the rejection it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Huang and Hole with the teaching of Jacobs to use a material having the claimed concentration on or in the roadway, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Jacobs teaches the claimed volume percentage range provides a high remanent magnetization, thus providing a high stability and reliability of the magnetic material.
In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Finally, regarding Applicant’s arguments that Jacobs applies the polymeric matrix onto the pavement surface and thus, does not teach a concentration of magnetic particles in a surface of a roadway. The examiner respectfully disagrees noting that by applying a layer to the surface of the pavement the layer becomes part of the surface of the roadway and thus, that portion of the surface of the roadway will have the concentration of particles of the applied polymeric layer.
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.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9, 22-25, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0247719 hereinafter “Huang”) in view of Hole (US Pub. No. 2008/0189038, hereinafter “Hole”).
Regarding claim 1, Huang teaches a method of maintaining lateral lane position of a vehicle traveling on a roadway, the method comprising:
detecting a magnetic field from a surface of the roadway, the surface including a magnetic or magnetized material localized to a longitudinal segment approximately centered between lane lines [[and extending continuously along a length of the roadway, the magnetic or magnetized material comprising particles, fibers and/or ribbon(s) distributed throughout a length of the longitudinal section]] (See at least Huang Figure 5, magnet 104, sensors 108, FIG. 5 illustrates the magnetic field strength of a magnet marker, and the corresponding measurements of magnetic field sensors in the position detection apparatus. See also [0046] “In one embodiment, the two orthogonally positioned probes 120 and 122 in each sensor 108 measure the magnetic field strength in the vertical direction, which is perpendicular to the road surface, and in the lateral direction of the mobile object 106 (e.g., the direction parallel to the vehicle axles). Thus, each sensor 108 has two measurements Bz and By, in the vertical and lateral directions, respectively. FIG. 5 illustrates the lateral and vertical magnetic field strength of a magnet marker 104, and the corresponding measurements of the sensors 108. In this example, the position detection apparatus 102 consists of five sensors 108, which are equally spaced with a sensor spacing of D. The sensor spacing D should be chosen to be smaller than the sensing range of the sensors 108. Exemplary values of D can be 10 cm to 40 cm. The spacing does not need to be equal between the sensors 108. The example shown in FIG. 1, FIG. 2, and FIG. 3 uses equal spacing for D just simply for the convenience of description. For description purpose, the two sensors 108 that are closest to the magnetic marker 104 are identified as the left sensor and the right sensor. The position offset (i.e., the lateral deviation) between the left sensor and the magnetic marker 104 is denoted as y. Based on the illustrated geometric relationship, the lateral measurements and the vertical measurements of each sensor 108 is marked with " " and "x", respectively.” See also at least Huang Figure 1, 2, 5 wherein the magnetic material is localized to a longitudinal segment approximately centered between lane lines as taught in [0002] “When installed on a vehicle, the position detection system can determine the vehicle's position with respect to a traffic lane it is traveling in. More specifically, magnetic markers are installed in the traffic lane to provide a road reference. As the vehicle travels along the lane, the position detection system senses magnetic field strength and estimates the vehicle's position with respect to the traffic lane. The vehicle position information can further be used by an intelligent guidance system to automatically guide the vehicle along the traffic lane.” and [0076] “The intelligent lateral guidance system 1402 is capable of guiding the mobile object 106 such as a road vehicle through a path defined by the magnetic markers 104. The magnetic markers 104 may be installed along the centerline of a path or with an offset to the road centerline.” The examiner notes that the road edge can be interpreted as the lane lanes.) ; and
adjusting a lateral position of the vehicle on the roadway during travel such that a maximum magnetic field signal is detected by a magnetometer at or near a centerline of the vehicle. (see at least Huang Figure 1, 2, and 5 and [0076-0077] “[0076] The intelligent lateral guidance system 1402 is capable of guiding the mobile object 106 such as a road vehicle through a path defined by the magnetic markers 104. The magnetic markers 104 may be installed along the centerline of a path or with an offset to the road centerline. The position sensing unit 1404 includes the position detection apparatus 102 as described with reference to FIG. 1 through FIG. 13 to determine the lateral deviation of the mobile object 106 with respect to the magnetic markers 104 along the path or roadway. The position detection apparatus 102 may also provide the polarity of the markers 104 and the code information….[0077] A lateral control unit 1406 computes the desired steering angle that is needed to ensure the mobile object 106 follows the path based on the lateral deviation from the position sensing unit 1404. The lateral control unit 1406 may also utilize the code information to infer the road curvature, the travel distance along the path, as well as other information pre-stored in code tables. Various control techniques can be used to determine the desired steering angle based on the lateral deviation and other available information. Those control techniques are well-known to those skilled in the art and therefore are not described here. A steering actuator unit 1412 consists of a motor (not shown) that can turn a steering wheel 1414, and upon receiving the desired steering angle from the lateral control unit 1406, the motor turns the steering wheel 1414 to the desired steering angle.” See also Huang [0005] for teaching the sensors are magnetometers “In the road reference systems with magnetic markers, discrete magnetic markers are installed in the roadway, generating local magnetic fields. Magnetic field sensors, e.g., magnetometers, are installed on the vehicle and measure the magnetic field strength as the vehicle travels.”).
Huang does not teach that the magnetic or magnetized material is extending continuously along a length of the roadway, the magnetic or magnetized material comprising particles, fibers and/or ribbon(s) distributed throughout a length of the longitudinal section.
Hole teaches that the magnetic or magnetized material is extending continuously along a length of the roadway, the magnetic or magnetized material comprising particles, fibers and/or ribbon(s) distributed throughout a length of the longitudinal section (see at least Hole [0016] “Advantageously, the magnetic marker is deposited in a substantially continuous way in the form of a magnetic strip..” See also Hole [0041] “A vehicle 20 travels on an infrastructure represented by the road 10 shown in broken lines in FIG. 1. … A magnetic marking, shown in the form of a continuous magnetic strip 30, is deposited in the middle of the road 10. This magnetic strip is formed by a sequence of intervals (31, 32) having their own magnetic fields with different characteristic properties. The magnetic marking can also take the form of a magnetic strip comprising a sequence of discontinuous intervals, each having its own magnetic field with different characteristics. As explained below, this sequence of different magnetic fields makes it possible to encode information of varying importance along the magnetic marking. A set of on-board magnetic sensors 33 is placed at the front of the vehicle 20 for reading the magnetic fields of the magnetic strip 30, for the purpose of calculating the position of the vehicle 20 with respect to the magnetic strip 30 and therefore to the infrastructure 10 on the one hand, and of reading the information encoded in the magnetic strip 30 on the other hand.” See also at least Hole [0090] and [0094] “ [0090] Hard magnetic materials can be supplied in the form of particles, and more particularly in the form of powders, beads or chips.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang with the teaching of Hole, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Hole teaches the magnetic marking can either be continuous or discontinuous (see Hole [0041]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a continuous magnetic marking because it would prevent gaps in signal and allow for a continuous detection of lateral position with respect to the road, providing for more accurate lane detection and following. Further Hole teaches if deterioration of a local portion of a magnetic strip occurs a continuous magnetic strip, only a limited number of bits of information would be lost and thus the system will be able to continue to operate (see Hole [0110]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Huang and Hole teach the method of claim 1, wherein the detection of the magnetic field takes place continuously (see at least Huang [0059] “As the mobile object 106 moves along the road/path, the sensors would be close to a marker 104 for a period of time, away from that marker 104 for a period of time, and then be around to the next marker 104 for a period of time. Since the processing cycle is typically set to run at certain frequencies (e.g., 100 hz), the processor 110 would, in step 906, determine that the sensors are around a marker 104 for several processing cycles, then determines that the sensors are not around a marker 104 for several processing cycles, and then determines that the sensors are around a marker 104 for several processing cycles.” See also Hole [0002] In the context of road safety, for example, numerous fatal accidents are caused by vehicles running off the road. It is therefore important to have continuous awareness of the position of the vehicle, regardless of the environmental or climatic conditions. See also Hole [0051] “The knowledge of this distance makes it possible to know the continuous positioning of the vehicle.” And Hole [0085] “The calibration system can also be used to continuously check that all the sensors are operating normally.” See also [110] )
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Huang and Hole teach the method of claim 1, wherein the magnetic or magnetized material is embedded into and/or coated onto the surface of the roadway (see at least Huang Figure 1 and 2 and [0042] “ FIG. 1 is an isometric view and FIG. 2 is a top view of a mobile object 106 including a first embodiment of a position detection apparatus 102 that is capable of determining a position offset between the position detection apparatus 102 and magnetic markers 104 installed along a roadway along which the object 106 is traveling. By detecting the position offset from the magnetic markers 104, the position detection apparatus 102 provides a lateral deviation of the mobile object 106 from the roadway.” See also Hole [0051] “To illustrate the distance estimation, let us assume that the magnetic marking formed on or in the infrastructure takes the form of a continuous magnetic strip,” See also Hole [0098] “ The strip can also be deposited in the infrastructure, by providing a shallow recess for this purpose, so that it can then be covered with another material to fill in the recess to mask the paint and make the magnetic strip more durable.”)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Huang and Hole teach the method of claim 1, wherein the magnetic field is detected by three or more magnetometers positioned on the vehicle (see at least Huang Figure 5, magnet 104, sensors 108, See also [0046] “In one embodiment, the two orthogonally positioned probes 120 and 122 in each sensor 108 measure the magnetic field strength in the vertical direction, which is perpendicular to the road surface, and in the lateral direction of the mobile object 106 (e.g., the direction parallel to the vehicle axles). Thus, each sensor 108 has two measurements Bz and By, in the vertical and lateral directions, respectively. FIG. 5 illustrates the lateral and vertical magnetic field strength of a magnet marker 104, and the corresponding measurements of the sensors 108. In this example, the position detection apparatus 102 consists of five sensors 108, which are equally spaced with a sensor spacing of D….” See also Hole [0049] “A driving assistance system according to the invention, together with the detection device, has at least three magnetic sensor's, making it possible to allow for the surrounding magnetic field when processing the signals from the sensors. In fact, the number of magnetic sensors is chosen in accordance with the desired accuracy of measurement of the distance between the vehicle and the magnetic strip.”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Huang and Hole teach the method of claim 5, wherein the three or more magnetometers are positioned at a height of about 18 inches or less from the roadway (see at least Huang which discloses three or more magnetometers, see for example Figure 2 and 5, sensors 108 and [0046] “In this example, the position detection apparatus 102 consists of five sensors 108, which are equally spaced with a sensor spacing of D.”), See also Hole [0043-0044] which teaches that there are three or more magnetometers and that the magnetometers are positioned at a height of about 18 inches or less from the roadway “FIG. 2 shows a diagram of the embodiment of the detection device used in the driving assistance system according to the invention. The device comprises a detection part comprising a support 60 attached to the vehicle (not shown in the diagram). The support 60 preferably lies in a direction perpendicular to the principal axis of the vehicle. The principal axis of the vehicle also lies along its direction of movement. The support 60 comprises at least three on-board magnetic sensors 45, and is placed under the vehicle, for example, so that the height h between this support 60 and the magnetic marking, in this case also represented in the form of a magnetic strip 40, is of the order of several tens of centimeters. It is preferably about 20 to 30 centimeters, in order to permit the reading of a magnetic field of sufficient amplitude, this amplitude varying as a function of the square of the distance between the magnetic strip and the sensors. …The magnetic sensors can be housed, for example, in a vehicle bumper located at a height of approximately 25 cm above the road and thus also above the magnetic strip.”)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Huang and Hole teach the method of claim 1, wherein the magnetic field is detected when the surface of the roadway is partially or fully covered by water, snow, ice, sand, and/or mud (see at least Huang [0004] “…For vehicle lateral control, the typical sensing technologies include vision based, DGPS based, and road reference based methods. The vision based system uses a camera to identify the lane as well as the vehicle's lateral position in the lane. However, vision-based systems have difficulties in poor visibility conditions such as fog, rain, and snow. The DGPS based system estimates the vehicle's location on earth using its distances to at least four satellites based on the triangulation principle and then estimates the vehicle's position in the lane by mapping the vehicle location in a digital map. However, the DGPS based systems may suffer from signal blockage and multipath when the vehicle travels by tall buildings, tunnels, and under dense trees. The road reference based systems consist of roadway references, such as induction wires, radar-reflective tape, and magnetic markers, which are installed along the roadway and on-board sensing system that senses the vehicle's position with respect to the road reference. In particular, the road reference systems with magnetic markers have the advantages of being highly reliable and insensitive to weather conditions.” The examiner notes that the claim is a method claim of maintaining lateral lane position of the vehicle. Huang teaches that no matter the weather, e.g. rain or snow, the method may be utilized. Further, the examiner notes that roadways inherently have sand, water, etc.).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Huang and Hole teach wherein the magnetic or magnetizable magnetized material has a Curie temperature in a range from about 65°C to about 149°C (see at least Hole [0093] “ Other possible hard magnetic materials are chromium dioxide and metal alloys such as Alnico (aluminum-nickel-cobalt-iron alloy), iron-based alloys, iron-carbon, iron-cobalt, iron-cobalt-chromium, iron-cobalt-molybdenum, copper-nickel-iron, manganese-aluminum, cobalt-platinum, etc.”. The examiner notes that at least chromium dioxide has a curie temperature (i.e. 118 °C) in the claimed range.)
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Huang and Hole teach the method of claim 1, wherein the particles, fibers, or ribbon(s) have a linear dimension in a range from a few microns to tens of millimeters (see at least Hole Claim 10 “which the particles of magnetic materials take the form of powders, beads or chips whose diameters range from 10 nm to 2 mm.” and [0091] “The particle sizes can vary from a few nanometers to more than one or two millimeters.”).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Huang and Hole teach the method of claim 1, wherein the magnetic or magnetized material comprises an element selected from the group consisting of iron, nickel, cobalt, chromium, gadolinium, samarium, neodymium, and dysprosium (see at least Hole [0093] “ Other possible hard magnetic materials are chromium dioxide and metal alloys such as Alnico (aluminum-nickel-cobalt-iron alloy), iron-based alloys, iron-carbon, iron-cobalt, iron-cobalt-chromium, iron-cobalt-molybdenum, copper-nickel-iron, manganese-aluminum, cobalt-platinum, etc.”).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Huang and Hole teach the method of claim 1 wherein the magnetic or magnetized material comprises chromium dioxide or a cobalt-based metallic glass (see at least Hole [0093] “ Other possible hard magnetic materials are chromium dioxide and metal alloys such as Alnico (aluminum-nickel-cobalt-iron alloy), iron-based alloys, iron-carbon, iron-cobalt, iron-cobalt-chromium, iron-cobalt-molybdenum, copper-nickel-iron, manganese-aluminum, cobalt-platinum, etc.”.)
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Huang and Hole teach the method of claim 5, wherein the three or more magnetometers are positioned along a line or curve transverse to a centerline of the vehicle (see at least Huang Figure 1 and 2, sensors 108, see also Figure 5, sensors 108. See also Hole Figure 2, on-board magnetic sensors 45, and [0043-0044] “FIG. 2 shows a diagram of the embodiment of the detection device used in the driving assistance system according to the invention. The device comprises a detection part comprising a support 60 attached to the vehicle (not shown in the diagram). The support 60 preferably lies in a direction perpendicular to the principal axis of the vehicle. The principal axis of the vehicle also lies along its direction of movement. The support 60 comprises at least three on-board magnetic sensors 45, and is placed under the vehicle, for example, so that the height h between this support 60 and the magnetic marking, in this case also represented in the form of a magnetic strip 40, is of the order of several tens of centimeters. … The sensors 45 are preferably aligned on a single straight line perpendicular to the principal axis of the vehicle.”).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Huang and Hole teach the method of claim 1, wherein the magnetic field is detected by three or more magnetometers, the magnetometers being arranged in a top row and a bottom row transverse to a centerline of the vehicle.
In particular, Huang teaches wherein the magnetic field is detected by three or magnetometers being arranged transvers to a centerline of the vehicle (see at least Huang Figure 1, 2 and [0043] “FIG. 3 is a block diagram 100 showing the position detecting apparatus 102 separated from the object 106. In this embodiment, the position detection apparatus 102 includes at least two magnetic field sensors 108 and a processor 110. Five magnetic field sensors 108 are shown in FIG. 1, FIG. 2, and FIG. 3 only for illustration purposes. The sensors 108 may be integrated into the same enclosure or be separated packaged into separate units.), however, Huang does not explicitly teach that the magnetometers are arranged in a top row and a bottom row transverse to a centerline of a vehicle.” See also [0005] “Magnetic field sensors, e.g., magnetometers, are installed on the vehicle and measure the magnetic field strength as the vehicle travels.”)
Further, Hole at least suggests that the magnetic field is detected by three or more magnetometers that are arranged in a single straight line or in multiple straight lines (see at least Hole [0043] “The sensors 45 are preferably aligned on a single straight line perpendicular to the principal axis of the vehicle”). Specifically, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand the plain language meaning of “preferably aligned on a single straight line” to include both a single line and multi-line arrangements because the term “preferably” indicates the embodiment is not limited to the “preferred arrangement.” Thus, Hole contemplates multiple straight lines, that is, for the sensors to be arranged in a top and bottom row
“[T]he question under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not merely what the references expressly teach but what they would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.” Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories, Inc., 874 F. 2d 804, 807–808 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (Emphasis added).
Claim(s) 8 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Jacobs (US Pub. No. 2003/0123930, hereinafter “Jacobs”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Huang and Hole teach the method of claim 1, including wherein the magnetic or magnetized material is embedded into the surface of the roadway (see at least Hole [0051] “To illustrate the distance estimation, let us assume that the magnetic marking formed on or in the infrastructure takes the form of a continuous magnetic strip,” See also Hole [0098] “ The strip can also be deposited in the infrastructure, by providing a shallow recess for this purpose, so that it can then be covered with another material to fill in the recess to mask the paint and make the magnetic strip more durable.”). However the combination of Huang and Hole do not teach that the magnetic or magnetized material has a concentration in the surface ranging from about 0.25 vol.% to about 10 vol.%.
Jacobs teaches wherein the magnetic or magnetized material is embedded into the surface of the roadway and has a concentration in the surface ranging from about 0.25 vol.% to about 10 vol.%. (see at least Jacobs [0088] “The magnetic particles are generally dispersed in the polymeric matrix at a high loading. The magnetic particles constitute at least 1 volume percent of the magnetic layer, while it is difficult to include particles in an amount constituting more than about 75 volume percent of the material. Preferably, the magnetic pavement markers have a binder comprising at least 30 volume percent of magnetic particles. A preferred loading range would be about 30 to 60 volume percent, more preferably from about 45 to about 60 volume percent. To obtain the highest remanent magnetization, the particles preferably are substantially domain-size, anisotropic particles, and there preferably is substantially parallel alignment of preferred magnetic axes of a sufficient number of the particles so as to make the magnet material itself anisotropic.” Further, the examiner notes that Jacobs teaches that the magnetic material or magnetized material is embedded in the roadway in [0008-0010] “[0008] One magnetic marking system includes a series of magnetic "nails" embedded in the roadway. …[0009] Another magnetic marking system employs a magnetic paint to produce magnetic stripes on the roadway…. [0010] Some previously known magnetic guidance systems have employed materials embedded within a roadway, such as disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,609,678 and 3,714,625. The polymer-based magnetic materials disclosed are resilient and flexible, such as nitrile and silicone rubber, and plasticized PVC. Resilient refers to recovering to substantially the original shape after removal of a deformation force. The '678 patent discloses, in one embodiment, a polymeric magnetic tape or sheet that is "either inserted edgewise in a narrow channel or slot or laid flat in a more shallow channel cut in the roadway." (col. 3, lines 4-6). This patent further states that magnets may also be embedded within the pavement of the roadway instead of in an open channel. (col. 3, lines 31-32). A flux sensor is mounted on a vehicle that travels over the roadway The sensor can generate an electric signal in response to the magnetic medium if the magnetic field is sufficiently strong to be sensed. …” ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Huang and Hole with the teaching of Jacobs to use a material having the claimed concentration on or in the roadway, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Jacobs teaches the claimed volume percentage range provides a high remanent magnetization, thus providing a high stability and reliability of the magnetic material.
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Huang and Hole teach the method of claim 5, but does not disclose wherein the three or more magnetometers include fluxgate magnetometers and/or giant magnetoresistance (GMR) sensors.
Jacobs teaches wherein the magnetometers may include fluxgate magnetometers and/or giant magnetoresistance (GMR) sensors (see at least Jacobs [0095] “A number of sensors and transducers are available to convert the magnetic signal from the magnetic pavement markers of the invention into an electrical signal suitable for further processing. Illustrative examples of such sensors include flux-gate magnetometers, Hall effect sensors, and solid-state magnetoresistive (MR) sensors.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Huang and Hole with the teaching of Jacobs to have the magnetometers of Huang to be fluxgate or GMR sensors, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Jacobs teaches fluxgate sensors and MR sensors are suitable for detecting a magnetic signal from magnetic pavement markers for providing guidance of vehicles on a roadway (see Jacobs [0094-0095]).
The examiner notes that Jacobs also teaches that the magnetic marker can be detected even though the roadway is partially or fully covered by water, snow, ice sand and/or mud (see at least Jacobs [0003] [0007].)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
The examiner notes that the previous references cited in this section remain pertinent to this disclosure including references that teach the curie temperature of chromium dioxide and that magnetic markers can be especially useful in situations wherein the road is covered by snow dust and sand.
Zhang (US Pub. No. 2021/0402988) is cited for showing an array of magnetic sensors in both the front portion of a tractor and the rear portion of a trailer which could be relevant to the top row and bottom row of magnetometers recited in claim 27. Further, in one embodiment they are taught to be on the bumper or the chassis (see Zhang [0026] [0046] and Figure 2.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER M. ANDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5pm MST.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on (571)270-3832. 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.
/JENNIFER M ANDA/Examiner, Art Unit 3662