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 application filed on 02/14/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1-20 are currently rejected.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: These claims are missing periods at the end of the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims and specification disclose that “said coating transmits roadway-specific data”. The definition of transmit according to Oxford English Dictionary is “to broadcast something, or to send out or carry signals or messages using radio, television, etc.” The specification does not seem to introduce a special definition of the term “transmit” so therefore “transmit” is defined to “broadcast a signal”. Applicants specification does not set forth a disclosure on how to “broadcast a signal” from a painted on coating applied to a road sign and instead discloses that the coating is applied in a predetermined pattern such as a QR code or barcode in order to represent data via the physical layout for a vehicle to read. Therefore it appears that the data is encoded via the physical layout of the coating, not though a “transmission” of a signal generated and broadcasted from within the coating itself. Examiner suggests amending the term “transmission” in both the claims and specification to a term like “reflects”, “displays”, “represents” to overcome the written description rejection because the rest of the specification appears to disclose that the shape of the coating is what the data is represented by and the coating itself just has increased reflective or emissive properties to better reflect off light in order to be picked up by a sensor on the vehicle.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The claims and specification disclose that “said coating transmits roadway-specific data”. As mentioned supra, the definition of the term “transmit” leave one having ordinary skill in the art undue experimentation in order to create a “coating” that is capable of “transmitting roadway-specific data”. The current state of the art is that data is transmitted via signals generated by computers. The specification does not set forth how one would create a “coating” material that is capable of both generating and self-emitting a signal that is capable of being read by a vehicle. Coatings have inherent properties such as color or reflectivity that can be adjusted though chemical adjustments but the state of the art and the specification do not lay out how one goes about creating a signal transmitting substance. Therefore due to the need for undue experimentation due to at least the factors argued supra to arrive at the claimed invention the invention as currently disclosed is not enabled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 11, 14, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Han (US 2025/0270726), herein Han.
Regarding claim 1:
Han teaches:
An apparatus for road signage (road signs [0003]), the apparatus comprising:
a coating that is readable by electronic equipment configured to apply to a surface (For vehicles, LiDAR sensors used to recognize surrounding objects may detect an exterior coating system applied to objects such as vehicles, road signs, traffic cones, buildings, barriers, and curbs [0003]);
and said coating, on a surface in view of a vehicle receiver, is readable by a processor electronically coupled to said receiver (LiDAR is used as a primary sensor for self-driving or autonomous vehicles and other objects to navigate surroundings in real-time. LiDAR emits near-infrared (NIR) laser pulses and then detects NIR light reflected by these surrounding objects. Specifically, a coating is “LiDAR visible” if LiDAR sensors used to recognize surrounding objects may detect a coating or coating system applied to objects, typically within the light spectrum just outside of the visible (wavelength of 400-700 nm), usually 700 nm to 2500 nm or 800 nm to 2500 nm, and specifically 905 nm to 1550 nm for standardized LiDAR wavelengths [0017]);
wherein said coating transmits (in light of the 112a rejection and in the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner is interpreting the term “transmit” to include “reflecting” or “representing”.) roadway-specific data (LiDAR sensors used to recognize surrounding objects may detect an exterior coating system applied to objects such as vehicles, road signs, traffic cones, buildings, barriers, and curbs. [0003]; examiner notes that road signs would contain information that is specific to the road in which it is installed at.) for use by a vehicle operating on said roadways (LiDAR emits near-infrared (NIR) laser pulses and then detects NIR light reflected by these surrounding objects. Specifically, a coating is “LiDAR visible” if LiDAR sensors used to recognize surrounding objects may detect a coating or coating system applied to objects, typically within the light spectrum just outside of the visible (wavelength of 400-700 nm), usually 700 nm to 2500 nm or 800 nm to 2500 nm, and specifically 905 nm to 1550 nm for standardized LiDAR wavelengths [0017]).
Regarding claim 3:
Han teaches all the limitation of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Han further teaches:
said coating is invisible to the human eye (a coating or coating system applied to objects, typically within the light spectrum just outside of the visible (wavelength of 400-700 nm), usually 700 nm to 2500 nm or 800 nm to 2500 nm, and specifically 905 nm to 1550 nm for standardized LiDAR wavelengths [0017]).
Regarding claim 5:
Han teaches all the limitation of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Han further teaches:
said surface is a pre-existing component of conventional road signage (For vehicles, LiDAR sensors used to recognize surrounding objects may detect an exterior coating system applied to objects such as vehicles, road signs, traffic cones, buildings, barriers, and curbs. [0003]).
Regarding claim 11:
Han teaches all the limitation of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Han further teaches:
said coating is utilized by fully autonomous vehicles (LiDAR is used as a primary sensor for self-driving or autonomous vehicles and other objects to navigate surroundings in real-time [0017]).
Regarding claim 14:
Han teaches all the limitation of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Han further teaches:
said data may be repeated along a length of roadway (LiDAR sensors used to recognize surrounding objects may detect an exterior coating system applied to objects such as vehicles, road signs, traffic cones, buildings, barriers, and curbs. [0003]; examiner notes that road signs and other road attributes that can be coated as taught in Han appear in a repeated fashion along roadways.).
Regarding claim 16:
Han teaches:
A method for providing information to vehicle self-driving equipment (LiDAR emits near-infrared (NIR) laser pulses and then detects NIR light reflected by these surrounding objects. Specifically, a coating is “LiDAR visible” if LiDAR sensors used to recognize surrounding objects may detect a coating or coating system applied to objects, typically within the light spectrum just outside of the visible (wavelength of 400-700 nm), usually 700 nm to 2500 nm or 800 nm to 2500 nm, and specifically 905 nm to 1550 nm for standardized LiDAR wavelengths [0017]), the method comprising:
providing a coating that is readable by electronic visualization equipment (For vehicles, LiDAR sensors used to recognize surrounding objects may detect an exterior coating system applied to objects such as vehicles, road signs, traffic cones, buildings, barriers, and curbs [0003]); and
applying information readable by said electronic visualization equipment to a surface (For vehicles, LiDAR sensors used to recognize surrounding objects may detect an exterior coating system applied to objects such as vehicles, road signs, traffic cones, buildings, barriers, and curbs [0003]); and
capturing an image of said readable coating with said electronic visualization equipment (LiDAR is used as a primary sensor for self-driving or autonomous vehicles and other objects to navigate surroundings in real-time. LiDAR emits near-infrared (NIR) laser pulses and then detects NIR light reflected by these surrounding objects. Specifically, a coating is “LiDAR visible” if LiDAR sensors used to recognize surrounding objects may detect a coating or coating system applied to objects, typically within the light spectrum just outside of the visible (wavelength of 400-700 nm), usually 700 nm to 2500 nm or 800 nm to 2500 nm, and specifically 905 nm to 1550 nm for standardized LiDAR wavelengths [0017]); and
transmitting said information to a processor (examiner notes that LIDAR system and autonomous driving system according to Han inherently has a processor to process the data.):
wherein information transmitted to said processor is used by vehicle self-driving equipment to assist in conducting said vehicle (LiDAR is used as a primary sensor for self-driving or autonomous vehicles [0017]).
Regarding claim 18:
Han teaches all the limitation of claim 16, upon which this claim is dependent.
Han further teaches:
said coating is invisible to the human eye (a coating or coating system applied to objects, typically within the light spectrum just outside of the visible (wavelength of 400-700 nm), usually 700 nm to 2500 nm or 800 nm to 2500 nm, and specifically 905 nm to 1550 nm for standardized LiDAR wavelengths [0017]).
Regarding claim 19:
Han teaches all the limitation of claim 16, upon which this claim is dependent.
Han further teaches:
said surface is a pre-existing component of conventional road signage (For vehicles, LiDAR sensors used to recognize surrounding objects may detect an exterior coating system applied to objects such as vehicles, road signs, traffic cones, buildings, barriers, and curbs. [0003]).
Regarding claim 20:
Han teaches all the limitation of claim 16, upon which this claim is dependent.
Han further teaches:
applying said coating in the form of machine-readable information to a transparent surface material (the substrate 460 is plastic, metal, wood, glass, concrete, cement, paper, leather, ceramic, fabric, composite, or combinations thereof [0040]); and
applying adhesive to one side of said transparent surface material (the article 400 comprises the coatings system described herein which has been applied to a substrate 460 [0040]): and
applying said transparent surface material and coating to a surface (coating system applied to objects such as vehicles, road signs, traffic cones, buildings, barriers, and curbs [0003]).
the substrate 460 is plastic, metal, wood, glass, concrete, cement, paper, leather, ceramic, fabric, composite, or combinations thereof
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 6, 9, 13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US 2025/0270726), herein Han in view of Thimm (DE 102015011869), herein Thimm.
Regarding claim 2:
Han teaches all the limitation of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Han does not explicitly teach, however Thimm teaches:
said coating is visible to the human eye (in the cases in where the machine-readable coding, even if visible in the visual spectrum, scarcely affects the visual impression of the human-readable coding, for example when the machine-readable coding is provided by a very "thin" dot code (see, for example, the above-mentioned EP 1 833 001 A1 ), which visually hardly affects the impression of human-readable coding. [page 4]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Han to include the teachings as taught by Thimm with a reasonable expectation of success. Both Han and Thimm are in the same field of endeavor of coatings applied to road signs to aid in autonomous vehicle readability. Thimm also teaches “the advantages of the traffic sign device described above are immediately apparent with regard to the vehicle assistance system. Due to the fact that the traffic sign information is coded machine-readable, it can be more easily detected by the vehicle assistance system and, in particular, easily evaluated. The computational effort when evaluating an image information that corresponds to the optically detected traffic sign information can be reduced in comparison to the evaluation of a human readable Traffic sign. In particular, the evaluation of the traffic sign information will be less error-prone, since machine-readable coding provides the possibility of fault-tolerant coding. Also with regard to a further processing of the evaluated traffic sign information by the vehicle assistance system or connected other assistance systems, the present invention has the advantage that by means of a machine-readable coding unique and quickly processed further information can be encoded in a simple manner. [Thimm, page 3]”
Regarding claim 4:
Han teaches all the limitation of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Han does not explicitly teach however Thimm teaches:
said coating includes traditional roadway markings known to vehicle operators (a roadway section can serve as an information carrier on which a traffic sign in the form of a lane marking can be arranged [page 2]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Han to include the teachings as taught by Thimm with a reasonable expectation of success. Both Han and Thimm are in the same field of endeavor of coatings applied to road signs to aid in autonomous vehicle readability. Thimm also teaches “the advantages of the traffic sign device described above are immediately apparent with regard to the vehicle assistance system. Due to the fact that the traffic sign information is coded machine-readable, it can be more easily detected by the vehicle assistance system and, in particular, easily evaluated. The computational effort when evaluating an image information that corresponds to the optically detected traffic sign information can be reduced in comparison to the evaluation of a human readable Traffic sign. In particular, the evaluation of the traffic sign information will be less error-prone, since machine-readable coding provides the possibility of fault-tolerant coding. Also with regard to a further processing of the evaluated traffic sign information by the vehicle assistance system or connected other assistance systems, the present invention has the advantage that by means of a machine-readable coding unique and quickly processed further information can be encoded in a simple manner. [Thimm, page 3]”
Regarding claim 6:
Han teaches all the limitation of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Han does not explicitly teach, however Thimm teaches:
said surface is conventional road markings (a roadway section can serve as an information carrier on which a traffic sign in the form of a lane marking can be arranged [page 2]) that are applied as segments that make a matrix code (wherein the machine-readable coding is provided for a sensor-based read-out and a computer-aided decoding that the machine-readable encoding comprises a matrix code [page 7]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Han to include the teachings as taught by Thimm with a reasonable expectation of success. Both Han and Thimm are in the same field of endeavor of coatings applied to road signs to aid in autonomous vehicle readability. Thimm also teaches “the advantages of the traffic sign device described above are immediately apparent with regard to the vehicle assistance system. Due to the fact that the traffic sign information is coded machine-readable, it can be more easily detected by the vehicle assistance system and, in particular, easily evaluated. The computational effort when evaluating an image information that corresponds to the optically detected traffic sign information can be reduced in comparison to the evaluation of a human readable Traffic sign. In particular, the evaluation of the traffic sign information will be less error-prone, since machine-readable coding provides the possibility of fault-tolerant coding. Also with regard to a further processing of the evaluated traffic sign information by the vehicle assistance system or connected other assistance systems, the present invention has the advantage that by means of a machine-readable coding unique and quickly processed further information can be encoded in a simple manner. [Thimm, page 3]”
Regarding claim 9:
Han teaches all the limitation of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Han does not explicitly teach, however Thimm teaches:
said surface is a conventional road (a roadway section can serve as an information carrier on which a traffic sign in the form of a lane marking can be arranged [page 2]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Han to include the teachings as taught by Thimm with a reasonable expectation of success. Both Han and Thimm are in the same field of endeavor of coatings applied to road signs to aid in autonomous vehicle readability. Thimm also teaches “the advantages of the traffic sign device described above are immediately apparent with regard to the vehicle assistance system. Due to the fact that the traffic sign information is coded machine-readable, it can be more easily detected by the vehicle assistance system and, in particular, easily evaluated. The computational effort when evaluating an image information that corresponds to the optically detected traffic sign information can be reduced in comparison to the evaluation of a human readable Traffic sign. In particular, the evaluation of the traffic sign information will be less error-prone, since machine-readable coding provides the possibility of fault-tolerant coding. Also with regard to a further processing of the evaluated traffic sign information by the vehicle assistance system or connected other assistance systems, the present invention has the advantage that by means of a machine-readable coding unique and quickly processed further information can be encoded in a simple manner. [Thimm, page 3]”
Regarding claim 13:
Han teaches all the limitation of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Han further teaches:
said data is in the form of a matrix code (wherein the machine-readable coding is provided for a sensor-based read-out and a computer-aided decoding that the machine-readable encoding comprises a matrix code [page 7]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Han to include the teachings as taught by Thimm with a reasonable expectation of success. Both Han and Thimm are in the same field of endeavor of coatings applied to road signs to aid in autonomous vehicle readability. Thimm also teaches “the advantages of the traffic sign device described above are immediately apparent with regard to the vehicle assistance system. Due to the fact that the traffic sign information is coded machine-readable, it can be more easily detected by the vehicle assistance system and, in particular, easily evaluated. The computational effort when evaluating an image information that corresponds to the optically detected traffic sign information can be reduced in comparison to the evaluation of a human readable Traffic sign. In particular, the evaluation of the traffic sign information will be less error-prone, since machine-readable coding provides the possibility of fault-tolerant coding. Also with regard to a further processing of the evaluated traffic sign information by the vehicle assistance system or connected other assistance systems, the present invention has the advantage that by means of a machine-readable coding unique and quickly processed further information can be encoded in a simple manner. [Thimm, page 3]”
Regarding claim 17:
Han teaches all the limitation of claim 16, upon which this claim is dependent.
Han does not explicitly teach, however Thimm teaches:
said coating is visible to the human eye (in the cases in where the machine-readable coding, even if visible in the visual spectrum, scarcely affects the visual impression of the human-readable coding, for example when the machine-readable coding is provided by a very "thin" dot code (see, for example, the above-mentioned EP 1 833 001 A1 ), which visually hardly affects the impression of human-readable coding. [page 4]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Han to include the teachings as taught by Thimm with a reasonable expectation of success. Both Han and Thimm are in the same field of endeavor of coatings applied to road signs to aid in autonomous vehicle readability. Thimm also teaches “the advantages of the traffic sign device described above are immediately apparent with regard to the vehicle assistance system. Due to the fact that the traffic sign information is coded machine-readable, it can be more easily detected by the vehicle assistance system and, in particular, easily evaluated. The computational effort when evaluating an image information that corresponds to the optically detected traffic sign information can be reduced in comparison to the evaluation of a human readable Traffic sign. In particular, the evaluation of the traffic sign information will be less error-prone, since machine-readable coding provides the possibility of fault-tolerant coding. Also with regard to a further processing of the evaluated traffic sign information by the vehicle assistance system or connected other assistance systems, the present invention has the advantage that by means of a machine-readable coding unique and quickly processed further information can be encoded in a simple manner. [Thimm, page 3]”
Claim(s) 7-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US 2025/0270726), herein Han in view of Nickel (US 2023/0184922), herein Nickel.
Regarding claim 7:
Han teaches all the limitation of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Han does not explicitly teach, however Nickel teaches:
coating is applied as part of the roadway-building process (During road construction, the tape 1010 is applied to the road 120 with the RFID devices 140 already in the proper orientations. [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Han to include the teachings as taught by Nickel with a reasonable expectation of success. Both Han and Nickel are in the same field of endeavor of navigation beacons for autonomous vehicle readability. Nickel also teaches “The infrastructure provides advantages over computer vision and GPS. The RFID environment is better suited than GPS for detecting lateral lane position of fast-moving vehicles. It is better suited than computer vision for detecting lateral lane distances in inclement weather and other conditions (e.g., snow, sand, smoke, thick fog, white out conditions) that obscure lane lines and other road details. Thus, the infrastructure creates much greater safety for autonomous vehicles in both normal and difficult conditions [Nickel, 0117]”.
Regarding claim 8:
Han teaches all the limitation of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Han does not explicitly teach, however Nickel teaches:
said coating is applied after the roadway is completed (Pavement markers 130 already on a road may be retrofitted to carry the RFID devices 140. A pavement marker 130 may be retrofitted, for instance, by boring a small hole, embedding the RFID device 140 in the hole, and either filling the hole with epoxy or covering the hole with tar or another material. Alternatively, the RFID device 140 may be pre-manufactured within a housing, and the housing is inserted into the hole. [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Han to include the teachings as taught by Nickel with a reasonable expectation of success. Both Han and Nickel are in the same field of endeavor of navigation beacons for autonomous vehicle readability. Nickel also teaches “The infrastructure provides advantages over computer vision and GPS. The RFID environment is better suited than GPS for detecting lateral lane position of fast-moving vehicles. It is better suited than computer vision for detecting lateral lane distances in inclement weather and other conditions (e.g., snow, sand, smoke, thick fog, white out conditions) that obscure lane lines and other road details. Thus, the infrastructure creates much greater safety for autonomous vehicles in both normal and difficult conditions [Nickel, 0117]”.
Regarding claim 10:
Han teaches all the limitation of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Han does not explicitly teach, however Nickel teaches:
said coating is applied as part of the roadway-building process (During road construction, the tape 1010 is applied to the road 120 with the RFID devices 140 already in the proper orientations. [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Han to include the teachings as taught by Nickel with a reasonable expectation of success. Both Han and Nickel are in the same field of endeavor of navigation beacons for autonomous vehicle readability. Nickel also teaches “The infrastructure provides advantages over computer vision and GPS. The RFID environment is better suited than GPS for detecting lateral lane position of fast-moving vehicles. It is better suited than computer vision for detecting lateral lane distances in inclement weather and other conditions (e.g., snow, sand, smoke, thick fog, white out conditions) that obscure lane lines and other road details. Thus, the infrastructure creates much greater safety for autonomous vehicles in both normal and difficult conditions [Nickel, 0117]”.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US 2025/0270726), herein Han in view of Thimm (DE 102015011869), herein Thimm and Tran (US 2020/0277008), herein Tran.
Regarding claim 12:
Han teaches all the limitation of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Han does not explicitly teach however Thimm teaches:
said roadway-specific data includes speed (As a machine-readable encoding, a QR code is used in the example shown. The meaning of traffic sign information 16 is "D; speed limit; 60 ". The "D" can be understood as a nationality abbreviation for Germany and is optional, "permissible maximum speed" is self-explanatory, the specific speed is indicated by the parameter "60". [page 6]),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Han to include the teachings as taught by Thimm with a reasonable expectation of success. Both Han and Thimm are in the same field of endeavor of coatings applied to road signs to aid in autonomous vehicle readability. Thimm also teaches “the advantages of the traffic sign device described above are immediately apparent with regard to the vehicle assistance system. Due to the fact that the traffic sign information is coded machine-readable, it can be more easily detected by the vehicle assistance system and, in particular, easily evaluated. The computational effort when evaluating an image information that corresponds to the optically detected traffic sign information can be reduced in comparison to the evaluation of a human readable Traffic sign. In particular, the evaluation of the traffic sign information will be less error-prone, since machine-readable coding provides the possibility of fault-tolerant coding. Also with regard to a further processing of the evaluated traffic sign information by the vehicle assistance system or connected other assistance systems, the present invention has the advantage that by means of a machine-readable coding unique and quickly processed further information can be encoded in a simple manner. [Thimm, page 3]”
Han in view of Thimm does not explicitly teach, however Tran teaches:
grade (roadway-characteristic data may include an approximation of a roadway grade [0033]), vehicular spacing (adaptive vehicle-proximity guidance [0003]), braking points (parameters such as braking patterns [0035]) and speed-zone changes (the camera may interpret the barcode as an indication that a truck in front of the autonomous vehicle is rapidly decelerating due to a flat tire. In response, a computer operating the autonomous vehicle may take an action such as slowing down the autonomous vehicle or changing the driving lane of the autonomous vehicle. [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Han and Thimm to include the teachings as taught by Tran with a reasonable expectation of success. Tran teaches the benefit of “Navigating a vehicle in proximity to another vehicle may require determining and maintaining a safe distance from the other vehicle. Determining and maintaining such a safe distance may be facilitated. [Tran, 0002]”.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US 2025/0270726), herein Han in view of You (US 10,134,280), herein You.
Regarding claim 15:
Han teaches:
An apparatus for road signage (road signs [0003]), the apparatus comprising:
said surface is in view of a vehicle receiver, is readable by a processor electronically coupled to said receiver (LiDAR is used as a primary sensor for self-driving or autonomous vehicles and other objects to navigate surroundings in real-time. LiDAR emits near-infrared (NIR) laser pulses and then detects NIR light reflected by these surrounding objects. Specifically, a coating is “LiDAR visible” if LiDAR sensors used to recognize surrounding objects may detect a coating or coating system applied to objects, typically within the light spectrum just outside of the visible (wavelength of 400-700 nm), usually 700 nm to 2500 nm or 800 nm to 2500 nm, and specifically 905 nm to 1550 nm for standardized LiDAR wavelengths [0017]);
wherein said coating transmits (in light of the 112a rejection and in the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner is interpreting the term “transmit” to include “reflecting” or “representing”.) roadway-specific data (LiDAR sensors used to recognize surrounding objects may detect an exterior coating system applied to objects such as vehicles, road signs, traffic cones, buildings, barriers, and curbs. [0003]; examiner notes that road signs would contain information that is specific to the road in which it is installed at.) for use by a vehicle operating on said roadways (LiDAR emits near-infrared (NIR) laser pulses and then detects NIR light reflected by these surrounding objects. Specifically, a coating is “LiDAR visible” if LiDAR sensors used to recognize surrounding objects may detect a coating or coating system applied to objects, typically within the light spectrum just outside of the visible (wavelength of 400-700 nm), usually 700 nm to 2500 nm or 800 nm to 2500 nm, and specifically 905 nm to 1550 nm for standardized LiDAR wavelengths [0017]).
Han does not explicitly teach, however You teaches:
a projector configured to project an image onto a roadway surface (a projector compatible with Light Fidelity (Li-Fi) technology [col 13, lines 6-15]); and
said image transmits roadway-specific data for use by a vehicle operating on said roadways (FIG. 4A shows an example that shows how the computer system 110 may collect data from the sensors, server, and/or Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communications 124 regarding the state of the environment external to the source vehicle 101 itself, including objects such as: other vehicles, pedestrians, road users, obstacles in the road, traffic signals, road signs, trees, etc., to project a signal 304, 305, 306 [col 13, lines 6-15])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Han to include the teachings as taught by You with a reasonable expectation of success. Both Han and You are in the same field of transmitting data to aid in autonomous vehicle driving. You also “addresses the aspect of safety regarding autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles. With the advancement of technology, autonomous and semiautonomous vehicles may become widely used by the population. Autonomous vehicles and semi-autonomous vehicles may provide a means of mobility to segments of the population that do not have or no longer have a personal driver's license: the children and the elderly. However, the absence of a conventional driver in autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles may decrease risk perception and hazard detection by passengers in the vehicle. For example, in a conventional vehicle, when a passenger intends to get out of the vehicle and a bicyclist is approaching from behind, a conventional driver may be able to alert the passenger regarding the incoming bike. However, the absence of a conventional driver fails to alert passengers, such as: children, the elderly, and the disabled, who may have a lower sense of risk perception and hazard detection when on/off the road. This present invention addresses the need for a system that alerts passengers in autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles, as the driver would do in conventional vehicles. [You, col 1, line 53 - col 2, line 5]”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kiel (US 2018/0251946) discloses In current highway transportation systems pavement markings guide vehicles along roads. A new system using metallic objects and electromagnetic sensing equipment would enable vehicles to better navigate roads. Metallic objects are placed on roadway surfaces in a similar fashion of existing pavement markings. The metallic objects are patterned to develop a code of information that is detectable using electromagnetic fields. When these fields are detected, the vehicles can be fully or semi-autonomously guided using the information communicated by the metallic filings.
Kovarik (US 2016/0132705) discloses A method and system for facilitating cost effective, reliable, system redundant, self-driving vehicles involves the employment of specialized lane marking components that permit unprecedented sensor feedback, and in particular, a system and method that enables accurate lane marking recognition despite adverse weather conditions, which presently pose problems experienced by self-driving systems that rely upon vision based camera systems.
Zhang (CN 116403178) discloses The invention claims a road invisible mark marking system based on AI driving and identifying method, the system comprises: invisible road mark marked line, buried below the road surface layer, mark marked line for identifying the bearing signal; a signal identification module, used for identifying the invisible road mark marked line under the road surface layer, and sending the invisible road mark marked line signal to the signal processing module; a signal processing module, used for receiving the invisible road mark marked line signal and translating, obtaining the geometric parameter and distance parameter of the invisible mark marked line, sending the translated data to the image processing module; an image processing module, used for receiving the geometric parameter and distance parameter of the translated invisible mark marked line and performing post-processing, displaying as a visible image. The invention develops a new type marked line with obvious difference with the existing traffic sign on the principle, and develops a completely different identification technology of the traffic sign identification completely different from the image identification of the vehicle real-time transmission in the automatic driving field.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott R Jagolinzer whose telephone number is (571)272-4180. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8AM - 4PM Eastern.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571)272-4190. 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.
Scott R. Jagolinzer
Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/S.R.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665