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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination in this Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification (paragraph [0043] filed on 10/28/2024) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: the is not concluded with a period ‘.’. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nickel (Nickel; US 2023/0184922).
As per claim 1, Nickel teaches chip-enabled raised pavement marker (CERPM) comprising:
a transceiver, wherein said transceiver is capable of transmitting the location of the CERPM to a vehicle (one or more antennas, 440 for example [para. [0062]], to output RFID navigational signals from a pavement marker 130; see e.g. para. [0032], [0034-35]) wherein said CERPM is capable of being fixed on a roadway surface (the pavement marker 130 is fixed on a road surface 120; see e.g. para. [0021-22]).
Even though Nickel does not explicitly teach that pavement marker has dimensions of standard raised pavement markers, Nickel teaches that the disclosed pavement marker 130 can be a raised pavement marker such as Bott’s dots, raised pavement cat eyes and delineators. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that raised pavement cat eyes have a standard dimension (100x100 mm as known in the art of raised pavement cat eyes). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Nickel to arrive at the claimed invention for the purpose of meeting a road safety standard which enables wider deployment and faster adaptation, thereby increasing associated revenue.
As per claim 4, the CERPM of claim 1 as taught by Nickle, wherein the location of the CERPM is indicated with location coordinates (encoded road information comprising GPS position of the pavement marker, see e.g. [0035], wherein GPS position is GPS coordinates as known in the art).
As per claim 5, the CERPM of claim 4 as taught by Nickle, wherein the location coordinates are GPS coordinates (as discussed earlier, encoded road information comprising GPS position of the pavement marker, see e.g. [0035], wherein GPS position is GPS coordinates as known in the art).
As per claim 6, The CERPM of claim 1 as taught by Nickle, wherein the CERPM is capable of transmitting said location to a vehicle using radio transmission (radio frequency communication between the vehicle and pavement markers; see e.g. para. [0103] and [0118]).
As per claim 7, the CERPM of claim 1 as taught by Nickle, wherein the CERPM further comprises a reflective upper surface capable of aiding in visual detection by vehicle drivers and/or cameras or other visual sensors in autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles (reflective upper surface for alerting oncoming drivers, see e.g. para. [0048], of semi-automated vehicles; see e.g. para. [0033]).
Claims 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nickel in view of Brooks (Brooks; US 2023/0362581).
As per claim 2, the CERPM of claim 1 as taught by Nickle, wherein said transceiver is capable of transmitting location of the CERPM to a vehicle as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1 but fails to teach using a low-power wide-area network (LPWAN).
Brooks, however, teaches a transceiver capable of transmitting using a low-power wide-area network (LPWAN), a signal between one or more devices can be exchanged using LPWAN; see e.g. para. [0053]. Nickle, Nespolo and Brooks are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of the inherent benefits of LPWAN, i.e. long-range communication, low power consumption, security and so forth.
As per claim 3, the CERPM of claim 2 as taught by Nickle and Brooks, wherein said LPWAN uses LoRA, NB-Iot, SigFox, Telensa, and/or Ingenu RPMA (the LPWAN uses LoRA; see e.g. para. [0053] of Brooks).
Claims 8, 10-14 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nickel in view of Nespolo et al. (Nespolo; US 2015/0314783).
As per claim 8, Nickel teaches a method for guiding an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle, comprising:
using an on-board receiver to receive transmissions from a chip-enabled raised pavement marker (CERPM) (one or more vehicle antennas, 532 for example [see e.g. para. [0099-100]], to capture RFID navigational signals transmitted from a pavement marker 130; see e.g. para. [0021], [0099] and FIGS. 3A, 5), wherein the transmissions comprise the location of the CERPM to the receiver (the navigational signals may be encoded with road information, see e.g. para. [0034], including GPS [location coordinate] information of the pavement marker; see e.g. para. [0035]);
determining the position of the vehicle relative to lane lines, edges of the drivable surface and/or obstacles based on the transmitted CERPM signal (the motor vehicle, using one or more onboard modules, uses the transmitted navigational signals to determine lateral distances from lane lines; see e.g. see e.g. para. [0032] and [0034-35]).
Nickel does not teach indicating the position of the vehicle related to lane lines.
Nespolo, however, teaches indicating position of a vehicle related to lane lines (a right lane marker 88A and a left lane marker 88B and indicating position of vehicle 82 related to the lane markers; see e.g. FIG. 3 and para. [0059]). Similarly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to indicate a position of a vehicle with respect to the disclosed pavement markers of Nickle.
Nickel and Nespolo are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine their teachings for the purpose of improved driver awareness with respect to lane of travel which in turn may reduce accidents.
As per claim 10, the method of claim 8 Nickle and Nespolo, wherein the location of the CERPM is indicated with location coordinates (encoded road information comprising GPS position of the pavement marker, see e.g. [0035], wherein GPS position is GPS coordinates as known in the art).
As per claim 11, the method of claim 8 as taught by Nickle and Nespolo, wherein indicating the position of the vehicle based on the transmitted CERPM signal further includes combining CERPM location data with onboard sensor data to indicate the relative position of the vehicle (using one or more data from onboard sensors, determining relative position of the vehicle, see e.g. para. [0033-35] and [0098]) such that computing the relative position of the vehicle is less computationally intense than using onboard sensor data alone (it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the computation load would be reduced if one or more information are determined and communicated to the vehicle, GPS coordinates, as discussed, for example).
As per claim 12, the method of claim 11 as taught by Nickle and Nespolo, wherein the onboard sensor includes one or more cameras (one or more sensors including cameras; see e.g. para. [0114]).
As per claim 13, the method of claim 11 as taught by Nickle and Nespolo, where the onboard sensor includes radar sensors (sensors including radar; see e.g. para. [0098]).
As per claim 14, Nickel teaches a system for guiding an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle, comprising:
an on-board receiver to receive transmissions from a chip-enabled raised pavement marker (CERPM) (one or more vehicle antennas, 532 for example [see e.g. para. [0099-100]], to capture RFID navigational signals from a pavement marker 130; see e.g. para. [0021], [0099] and FIGS. 3A, 5), wherein the transmissions comprise the location of the CERPM to the receiver (the navigational signals may be encoded with road information, see e.g. para. [0034], including GPS [location coordinate] information of the pavement marker; see e.g. para. [0035]); and
an onboard module capable of determining the position of the vehicle relative to lane lines, edges of the drivable surface and/or obstacles based on the transmitted CERPM signal (the motor vehicle, using one or more onboard modules, uses the transmitted navigational signals to determine lateral distances from lane lines; see e.g. see e.g. para. [0032]).
Nickel does not teach indicating the position of the vehicle related to lane lines.
Nespolo, however, teaches indicating position of a vehicle related to lane lines (a right lane marker 88A and a left lane marker 88B and indicating position of vehicle 82 related to the lane markers; see e.g. FIG. 3 and para. [0059]). Similarly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to indicate a position of a vehicle with respect to the disclosed pavement markers of Nickle.
Nickel and Nespolo are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine their teachings for the purpose of improved driver awareness with respect to lane of travel which in turn may reduce accidents.
As per claim 16, it is interpreted and rejected as claim 10.
As per claim 17, it is interpreted and rejected as claim 11.
As per claim 18, it is interpreted and rejected as claim 12.
As per claim 19, it is interpreted and rejected as claim 13.
As per claim 20, the system of claim 14 as taught by Nickel and Nespolo, further comprising a chip-enabled raised pavement marker (CERPM) (see e.g. para. [0014] and [0073]) including: a transceiver, wherein said transceiver is capable of transmitting the location of the CERPM to a vehicle (Nickel teaches one or more antennas, 440 for example [para. [0062]], to output RFID navigational signals from a pavement marker 130; see e.g. para. [0032], [0034-35]) wherein said CERPM is capable of being fixed on a roadway surface (Nickel further teaches the pavement marker 130 is fixed on a road surface 120; see e.g. para. [0021-22]).
Even though Nickel does not explicitly teach that pavement marker has dimensions of standard raised pavement markers, Nickel teaches that the disclosed pavement marker 130 can be a raised pavement marker such as Bott’s dots, raised pavement cat eyes and delineators. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that raised pavement cat eyes have a standard dimension (100x100 mm for example). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Nickel to arrive at the claimed invention for the purpose of meeting a road safety standard which enables wider deployment and faster adaptation, thereby increasing associated revenue.
Claims 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nickel in view of Nespolo and further in view of Brooks.
As per claim 9, the method of claim 8 as taught by Nickel and Nespolo, wherein the receiver communicates to the CERPM using a low-power wide-area network (LPWAN).
Brooks, however, teaches a receiver capable of transmitting using a low-power wide-area network (LPWAN), a signal between one or more devices can be exchanged using LPWAN; see e.g. para. [0053]. Nickle, Nespolo and Brooks are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of the inherent benefits of LPWAN, i.e. long-range communication, low power consumption, security and so forth.
As per claim 15, it is interpreted and rejected as claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD ADNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3705. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10AM-6PM.
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, Steven Lim can be reached on 571-270-1210. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MUHAMMAD ADNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688