DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a corrected office action of the Non-Final Rejection mailed on September 23, 2025.
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/377152, PGPUB US 2025/0116919 A1 in view of Guidi et al. (US 2013/0258431 A1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
In regard to claim 1, 18/377152 claims (see e.g. US 2025/0116919 A1, PGPUB of 18/377152)
a controller (see e.g. page 3, claim 1);
a laser diode operatively coupled with the controller (see e.g. page 3, claim 1);; and
at least one diffraction optical element (DOE) disposed to receive a beam of light from the laser diode and project the beam to a target area(see e.g. page 3, claim 1);
18/377152 fails to claim
a driver assistance system, comprising:
a driver assistance device; and
a vehicle housing the driver assistance device,
whereby the controller selects the desired DOE for projection.
However, Guidi et al. discloses
a driver assistance system, comprising (see e.g. Figures 1-10):
a driver assistance device (denoted “instrument cluster”) 10 (see e.g. Figure 1 and paragraph [0033]); and
a vehicle housing 12 (denoted “case”) the driver assistance device 10 (see e.g. Figure 1 and paragraph [0033]),
whereby the controller selects the desired DOE 32 for projection (see e.g. paragraph [0038]).
Given the teachings of Guidi et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the claimed device of 18/377152 with a driver assistance system, comprising: a driver assistance device; and a vehicle housing the driver assistance device, whereby the controller selects the desired DOE for projection.
Incorporating the claimed information device into a driver assistance system would allow the information system to be used to provide drivers additional safety.
In regard to claim 2, 18/377152 claims
a wheel, wherein the at least one DOE is situated on the wheel (see e.g. page 3, claim 2).
In regard to claim 3, 18/377152 claims
wherein a plurality of diffraction optical elements are situated about a periphery of the wheel (see e.g. page 3, claim 3).
In regard to claim 4, 18/377152 claims
wherein the wheel further comprises at least one element for locating a position on the wheel (see e.g. page 3, claim 4).
In regard to claim 5, 18/377152 claims
wherein the wheel further comprises at least one magnetic element (see e.g. page 3, claim 5).
In regard to claim 6, 18/377152 claims
a control board that comprises at least one magnetic element, the magnetic element for energizing and cooperation with the at least one magnetic element on the wheel for rotating the wheel (see e.g. page 3, claim 6).
In regard to claim 7, 18/377152 claims
wherein the at least one diffraction optical element includes information relating to operation of a vehicle (see e.g. page 3, claim 7).
In regard to claim 8, 18/377152 claims
wherein each of a plurality of diffraction optical elements includes a sequence element of a plurality of sequences of elements such that upon the display of the sequence of elements an animated information is displayed (see e.g. page 3, claim 8).
In regard to claim 9, 18/377152 claims
a motor operatively coupled with the wheel and the controller, the motor configured to rotate the wheel (see e.g. page 3, claim 9).
In regard to claim 10, 18/377152 claims
a beam collimator disposed between the diffraction optical elements and the laser diode, configured to collimate the laser through at least one of the diffraction optical elements see e.g. page 3, claim 10).
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 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guidi et al. (US 2013/0258431 A1) in view of Geyl (US 2013/0033463 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Guidi et al. discloses a driver assistance system, comprising (see e.g. Figures 1-10):
a driver assistance device (denoted “instrument cluster”) 10 (see e.g. Figure 1 and paragraph [0033]); and
a vehicle housing 12 (denoted “case”) the driver assistance device 10 (see e.g. Figure 1 and paragraph [0033]),
wherein the driver assistance device includes 10:
a controller (not shown in Figures, denoted “ control unit”, see e.g. paragraph [0038]);
a laser light source 18 (see e.g. Figure 2 and paragraph [0034]); and
at least one diffraction optical element (DOE) 68 (denoted “holograms”, see e.g. paragraph [0044]) disposed to receive a beam of light from the laser light source 18 and project the beam to a target area (see e.g. Figures 2, 8 and paragraph [0036] and [0044])),
whereby the controller selects the desired DOE 32 for projection (see e.g. paragraph [0038]).
Guidi et al. fails to disclose
the laser light source is laser diode operatively coupled with the controller.
However, Geyl discloses
the laser light source 30 is laser diode 30 operatively coupled with the controller 37 (see e.g. paragraph [0038]).
Given the teachings Geyl, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Guidi et al. with
the laser light source is laser diode operatively coupled with the controller.
A laser diode provides coherent and monochromatic light with a small footprint. By coupling it to the controller, the laser diode may be effectively controlled to provide light to a desired area.
In regard to claim 2, Guidi et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
a wheel 32 (denoted “holographic storage disc”, see e.g. paragraph [0036]), wherein the at least one DOE 68 is situated on the wheel 32 (see e.g. Figure 8).
In regard to claim 3, Guidi et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 2 above, and
wherein a plurality of diffraction optical elements 32 are situated about a periphery of the wheel 68 (see e.g. Figure 8).
In regard to claim 4, Guidi et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
the wheel further 68 comprises at least one element (denoted “mechanical positioning system”, see e.g. paragraph [0037]) for locating a position on the wheel 68.
In regard to claim 7, Guidi et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the at least one diffraction optical element 68 includes information relating to operation of a vehicle (see e.g. paragraphs [0045], [0002], [0007]).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guidi et al. (US 2013/0258431 A1) in view of Geyl (US 2013/0033463 A1) and further in view of Sylvain (FR 0652608, of which an English translation is attached).
In regard to claim 5, Guidi et al., in view of Geyl, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 2 above.
Guidi et al. further discloses a “mechanical positioning system” for allowing rotational movement of the disc 32 (see e.g. paragraph [0037]).
Guidi et al., in view of Geyl, fails to disclose
wherein the wheel further comprises at least one magnetic element.
However, Sylvain discloses a device using an electromagnetic system for rotating a needle (see e.g. page 2, third full paragraph of English translation). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find the replacement of the mechanical positioning system of Guidi et al. with an electromagnetic system as taught by Sylvain, as an art recognized equivalent.
Given the teachings of Sylvain, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Guidi et al., in view of Geyl, with wherein the wheel further comprises at least one magnetic element.
Replacing the mechanical system with an electromagnetic one would have the advantage of less moving parts and thus an improved longevity of the device.
In regard to claim 6, Guidi et al., in view of Geyl, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 6 above but fails to disclose
a control board that comprises at least one magnetic element, the magnetic element for energizing and cooperation with the at least one magnetic element on the wheel for rotating the wheel.
However, Sylvain discloses a device using an electromagnetic system for rotating a needle using an electromagnet and magnet and a controlling means for doing so (see e.g. page 2, third full paragraph of English translation and abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find the replacement of the mechanical positioning system of Guidi et al. with an electromagnetic system as taught by Sylvain, as an art recognized equivalent.
Given the teachings of Sylvain, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Guidi et al., in view of Geyl, with a control board that comprises at least one magnetic element, the magnetic element for energizing and cooperation with the at least one magnetic element on the wheel for rotating the wheel.
Replacing the mechanical system with an electromagnetic one would have the advantage of less moving parts and thus an improved longevity of the device.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guidi et al. (US 2013/0258431 A1) in view of Geyl (US 2013/0033463 A1) and further in view of Takeyasu et al. (US 2021/0053483 A1).
In regard to claim 8, Guidi et al., in view of Geyl, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 7 above, but fails to disclose
each of a plurality of diffraction optical elements includes a sequence element of a plurality of sequences of elements such that upon the display of the sequence of elements an animated information is displayed.
However, Takeyasu et al. discloses using an image display device to present an animated information (see e.g. paragraph [0050]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Guidi et al., in view of Geyl, to present an animated image for an improved user experience.
Given the teachings of Takeyasu et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Guidi et al., in view of Geyl, with each of a plurality of diffraction optical elements includes a sequence element of a plurality of sequences of elements such that upon the display of the sequence of elements an animated information is displayed.
Adapting the image projection device to provide an animated image would result in an improved user experience.
In regard to claim 9, Guidi et al., in view of Geyl, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 8 above.
Guidi et al. further discloses (see e.g. Figure 2):
a motor operatively 50 coupled with the wheel 32 and the controller, the motor 50 configured to rotate the wheel 32 (see e.g. paragraphs [0037]-[0038]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guidi et al. (US 2013/0258431 A1) in view of Geyl (US 2013/0033463 A1) and further in view of Mermillod et al. (FR 3079179 A1, of which an English translation is attached).
In regard to claim 10, Guidi et al., in view Geyl, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
a beam collimator disposed between the diffraction optical elements and the laser diode, configured to collimate the laser through at least one of the diffraction optical elements.
However, Mermillod et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 5a):
a beam collimator 21 (denoted “collimating lens”) disposed between the diffraction optical element 17 and the laser diode 15, configured to collimate the laser (see e.g. page 6, fifth full paragraph).
Given the teachings of Mermillod et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Guidi et al., in view of Geyl, with a beam collimator disposed between the diffraction optical elements and the laser diode, configured to collimate the laser through at least one of the diffraction optical elements.
Providing a collimator between the laser diode and the diffraction element would allow light that may be conical in nature to be changed to rectilinear (see e.g. page 6, fifth full paragraph of Mermillod et al.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871