DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the applicant's amendment submitted on 07/28/2026. In virtue of this amendment:
Claim 5 is canceled;
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 currently amended; and thus,
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are pending;
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 .
Drawings
The replacement drawings were received on 07/28/2026. These drawings are acceptable, therefore, the previous objection to the drawings is withdrawn.
Specification
The objection to the abstract of the disclosure is withdrawn in view of the amendment made to the abstract.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is 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.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “two sets of parallel marking each contain a herringbone pattern” which renders the claim indefinite, as the independent claim requires the parallel marking to have a plurality of parallel line, thus unclear how a plurality of parallel lines can make a herringbone pattern.
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 1-4, 6 and 8-10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Machine Translation of FR3058106A1 hereinafter “El” in view of NPL “Wider Edge Lines” hereinafter “USDOT”
Regarding claim 1, El discloses a method for operating a light-based driver assistance system in a motor vehicle (¶1L1-2: vehicle lighting to materialize a marking, relates to field of driver assistance), the method comprising:
projecting a light distribution onto a road surface in front of the motor vehicle (¶2L1-5: projection device can be integrated into the headlights of the motor vehicle in order to illuminate the road in front of the vehicle), wherein
the light distribution generates lane markings (Page.10 L12-13: materialize a first zone marked central [403] and a second zone marked [406]), wherein the lane markings are two sets of parallel markings (as shown in Fig.4 for example), the two sets of parallel marking separated at a distance (D) from one another that corresponds to a width of the motor vehicle (Page. 10 L21-24: the spacing of the marking [403] and [404] may depend on the width of the motor vehicle; for example the spacing [412] can correspond to 1.5 times the width of the motor vehicle), wherein each set of parallel marking comprises
a plurality of parallel lines (as shown in Fig.4 for example)
El does not explicitly disclose:
the plurality of parallel lines having varying widths.
USDOT discloses that increasing the marking width of an edge line from 4 inches to 6 inches would increase trave safety. (Page.2 L1-5: wider edge line increases driver’s perception of the edge of the travel lane and can provide a safety benefit to all facility types)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the parallel line disclosed by El to be an increasing width as it approaches the edge of the marking, as suggest by USDOT.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because an wider edge line increases safety. (USDOT)
Regarding claim 2, El in view of USDOT hereinafter “El/USDOT” discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein
the two sets of parallel markings look different than normal road surface lane markings. (as shown in Fig.4 for example, the marking [403] and [404] includes parallel zone of [402/[404] and [405]/[407] respectively).
Regarding claim 3, El/USDOT discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein
the two sets of parallel markings each look different than a double line, broken line, or a pair of lines composed of a solid line and a broken line. (shown in Fig.4 for example, the marking [403] and [404] includes parallel zone of [402/[404] and [405]/[407] respectively).
Regarding claim 4, El/USDOT discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein
the two sets of parallel markings each contain at least three parallel lines. (shown in Fig.4 for example, the marking [403] and [404] includes parallel zone of [402/[404] and [405]/[407] respectively).
Regarding claim 6, El/USDOT discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein
the two sets of parallel markings each contain a pattern of separate polygonal elements. (Page.10 L25-27: the invention covers any type of marking, including discontinuous bands)
Regarding claim 8, El/USDOT discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein
the two sets of parallel markings each contain a pattern of freeform elements. (Page.10 L25-27: the invention covers any type of marking, including discontinuous bands)
Regarding claim 9, El/USDOT discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein
the lane markings are generated directly by the light distribution projected onto the road surface. (Page.8 L30-31: the lighting can be adapted so that the materialized marking is at least a predetermined distance in front of the vehicle)
Regarding claim 10, El/USDOT discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein
the lane markings are generated by unlit sections of the light distribution projected onto the road surface. (Page. 9 L1-6: a negative contrast marking is materialized on the road; reducing the light intensity in the marked area can involve lowering the light intensity to a level below the light intensity of lighting function) )
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El in view of Machine Translation of WO2020/088916A1 hereinafter “Ziegel”
Regarding claim 7, El discloses the method according to claim 6
El does not explicitly disclose:
the two sets of parallel markings each contain a herringbone pattern.
Ziegel discloses in Fig.3 for example, a projected pattern on the road surface from a vehicle wherein the markings are in a herringbone pattern. (Fig.3: [110.3])
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the markings disclosed by El to be in a herringbone pattern as disclosed by Ziegel.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the pattern can also display the intended movement of the vehicle in addition to marking the lanes and El recognizes that different marking may be used. (Page.10 L25-27: the invention covers any type of marking, including discontinuous bands)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argued the prior art does not disclose varying width of parallel line, as USDOT describes a uniform increase of the travel lanes.
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).
In this instance, UDDOT suggest that a wider line can increase travel safety and in view with the disclosure of EL, the 1st/2nd zone [403/406] would be increased in width to increase safety; thus zones [402, 404] and [405, 407] would have to be reduced in width to maintain the proper distance [412]; thus having parallel lines with varying width.
Furthermore, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Finally, there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
For the at least foregoing reason, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RAYMOND R CHAI whose telephone number is (571)270-0576. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-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, Alexander Taningco can be reached at 571-242-8048. 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.
/Raymond R Chai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights