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
The following claims have been rejected or allowed for the following reasons:
Claim(s) 1-9 is rejected under 35 USC § 103
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-193330, filed on 12/2/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement/statements (IDS) were filed on 11/19/25 and 11/29/23. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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) 1-5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Mochizuki (US 20150224926 A1), in further view of Nakabayashi (US 20200339031 A1), in further view of Ichikawa (US 20170067609 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Mochizuki teaches A road surface illuminating device, comprising: an illuminating unit mounted on a vehicle and illuminating a road surface with patterned light; (Mochizuki [0006] reads “The driving support apparatus of the present disclosure includes: a projecting unit configured to project a predetermined support pattern on a road surface ahead of an own vehicle or a front window of the own vehicle; and a driving support control unit configured to control a projection state of the support pattern.”);
an environmental sensor that detects an obstacle around the vehicle; and an illumination controller controlling the illuminating unit, (Mochizuki [0022] reads “The driving support ECU 2 is provided with a road information detecting unit 21 configured to detect information of a road where the own vehicle is travelling from the front area image captured by the photographing camera CAM.”);
Mochizuki does not teach wherein the illumination controller emits the patterned light indicating an area where the vehicle passes without interference with the obstacle based on a detection result from the environmental sensor.
Ichikawa in analogous art, teaches wherein the illumination controller emits the patterned light indicating an area where the vehicle passes without interference with the obstacle based on a detection result from the environmental sensor. (Ichikawa [0092] reads “FIG. 8A is a view in which marks and the like informing the driver in a following vehicle in an adjacent lane of a lane change of the host vehicle are depicted on the road surface with laser light by the vehicle lamp (1 or 45). In the vehicle lamp (1 or 45), the lane change direction of the host vehicle detected by the turn signal lamp switch 64 or the steering operation detecting mechanism 65 is detected, and first to third arrow marks (66 to 68) indicating a lane change of the host vehicle My changing the lane from a traveling lane R11 to an adjacent lane R12 are depicted based on the detection result. Even though a turn signal lamp of the host vehicle My cannot be viewed, a driver in a different vehicle Otr can avoid a minor collision by visually recognizing the first to third arrow marks (66 to 68) in front thereof.” It would be appreciated by one with ordinary skill in the art that this area would be the space where the passing vehicle does not collide with the vehicle in the other lane.);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Mochizuki with that of Ichikawa to include a system that changes the projected light from a vehicle based on objects that are detected in front of the vehicle. This would allow for better safety around the vehicle. (Ichikawa [0005 – 0006] reads “An object of the present invention of this application is to provide a vehicle lamp of which laser light in red or the like other than white depicting a warning mark and the like in front of a vehicle is prevented from being recognized as configuring a headlamp of the vehicle by a person viewing from a place in front of the vehicle. Another object of the present invention of this application is to provide a vehicle lamp in which the degree of freedom of laser radiation in colors and the like is enhanced and lines, marks, and the like allowing a driver to more easily recognize the circumstances of a road can be depicted, and a vehicle lamp control system.”);
Regarding claim 2 Mochizuki/Ichikawa teaches The road surface illuminating device according to claim 1, wherein the patterned light has a width greater than or equal to the width of the entire vehicle including side mirrors. (Mochizuki figures 3 A-D clearly depict different types of patterns that the vehicle can produce, some of which are wider than the entire vehicle.);
PNG
media_image1.png
189
326
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mochizuki figures 3 A-D
Regarding claim 3 Mochizuki/Ichikawa teaches The road surface illuminating device according to claim 1, wherein the illumination controller determines a moving direction of the vehicle based on a speed and a steering angle of the vehicle (Mochizuki [0006] reads “The driving support control unit includes: a road information detecting unit configured to detect information of a road on which the own vehicle is travelling; a travelling state detecting unit configured to detect a traveling state of the own vehicle, the traveling state including at least one of a vehicle speed and a steering direction; a proper state determining unit configured to determine a proper vehicle speed and proper steering of the own vehicle based on the information of the road and the traveling state; and a projection control unit configured to project the support pattern as a moving image based on determination by the proper state determining unit.”);
when there is no obstacle in front of the vehicle. (Ichikawa [0092] reads “FIG. 8A is a view in which marks and the like informing the driver in a following vehicle in an adjacent lane of a lane change of the host vehicle are depicted on the road surface with laser light by the vehicle lamp (1 or 45). In the vehicle lamp (1 or 45), the lane change direction of the host vehicle detected by the turn signal lamp switch 64 or the steering operation detecting mechanism 65 is detected, and first to third arrow marks (66 to 68) indicating a lane change of the host vehicle My changing the lane from a traveling lane R11 to an adjacent lane R12 are depicted based on the detection result. Even though a turn signal lamp of the host vehicle My cannot be viewed, a driver in a different vehicle Otr can avoid a minor collision by visually recognizing the first to third arrow marks (66 to 68) in front thereof.” It would be appreciated by one with ordinary skill in the art that this area would be the space where the passing vehicle does not collide with the vehicle in the other lane.);
Regarding claim 4 Mochizuki/Ichikawa teaches The road surface illuminating device according to claim 1, wherein the illumination controller changes a length of the patterned light based on a speed of the vehicle or a relative speed between the vehicle and another vehicle. (Ichikawa [0091] reads “In this case, the lighting tool ECU 51 calculates a braking distance in accordance with the speed of the host vehicle as well as an amount of rainfall and the presence or absence of frozenness on the traveling road surface which are obtained through the speedometer 58, the raindrop sensor 56, the road information communication system 59, and the like. Then, the lighting tool ECU 51 depicts multiple marks indicating a position where the host vehicle can stop on the road surface in accordance with the application degree of the brake. For example, in a case where a braking distance in which a host vehicle My traveling 60 km per hour on the road surface in wet weather can stop through a gentle braking operation is calculated to be 90 m, a braking distance in which the host vehicle My can stop through an ordinarily forceful braking operation is calculated to be 70 m, and a braking distance in which the host vehicle My can stop through a braking operation performed with full strength is calculated to be 50 m, the vehicle lamp (1 or 45) depicts a rectangular and green first mark 62 a within a range from 70 m to 90 m in front of the vehicle, a rectangular and yellow second mark 62 b within a range from 50 m to 70 m, a rectangular and red third mark 62 c within a range equal to or less than 50 m, and the like in front of the host vehicle My.”);
Regarding claim 5 Mochizuki/Ichikawa teaches The road surface illuminating device according to claim 1, wherein the environmental sensor includes a camera. (Mochizuki [0022] reads “The driving support ECU 2 is provided with a road information detecting unit 21 configured to detect information of a road where the own vehicle is travelling from the front area image captured by the photographing camera CAM. The road information includes, for example, information on slopes, tunnels, curved paths or straight paths, and information on road signs present on the road and lane lines marked on the road surface.”);
Regarding claim 8 Mochizuki/Ichikawa teaches The road surface illuminating device according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle is a non-emergency vehicle, and the illumination controller specifies the shape of the patterned light in a manner that there is no overlap between a demarcation line and the end point of the patterned light, and that there is no overhang of the patterned light from the demarcation line where the overhang is prohibited. (Mochizuki figures 6 A-C depict different setups for the patterned light wherein the pattered light can be made such that it does not overlap with the lane edge markings and does not exceed the edge of the roadway.);
PNG
media_image2.png
448
663
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Mochizuki figures 6 A-C
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Mochizuki/Ichikawa, in further view of Navarro (US 20210354644 A1).
Regarding claim 6 Mochizuki/Ichikawa teaches The road surface illuminating device according to claim 1.
Mochizuki/Ichikawa does not teach wherein the vehicle is an emergency vehicle, and the illumination controller allows emission of the patterned light only when the vehicle makes an emergency run.
Navarro in analogous art, teaches wherein the vehicle is an emergency vehicle, and the illumination controller allows emission of the patterned light only when the vehicle makes an emergency run. (Navarro [0020] reads “The illustrative lighting units 114, 138 may emit light 204 continuously (e.g., uninterrupted), according to a predetermined pattern, or may not emit light at all, as desired by the user. Furthermore, the lighting units 114, 138 may emit light of a single color, or multiple colors (e.g., blue and red). The lighting units 114, 138 are illustratively electrically coupled to a conventional light control unit (not shown) operably coupled to the vehicle 200, in a known manner.” It would be appreciated by one with ordinary skill in the art that emergency personal would only turn on their emergency lights while preforming an act that is an emergency.);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Mochizuki/Ichikawa with that of Navarro to include the ability to place this lighting system onto an emergency vehicle. This would allow for the emergency vehicle to be better spotted when it is on the way to an emergency. (Navarro [0002] reads “Utility and emergency vehicles are often outfitted with lighting assemblies, including aftermarket lighting assemblies, to increase visibility to other drivers and, at times, used to communicate while moving through traffic. Often, these lighting assemblies are installed on the front end of the vehicle, but installation is burdensome and requires removal of the existing fascia or vehicle grille. Furthermore, conventional front-end lighting assemblies are typically only visible from the front of the vehicle and may be hindered by a guard or other front-end tactical vehicle protection, which requires an emergency vehicle, for example, to drive further into an active intersection and risk a collision. Less invasive, more visible options are desired.”);
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Mochizuki/Ichikawa, in further view of Navarro (US 20210354644 A1), in further view of Nagata (Nagata US 20230356653 A1);
Regarding claim 7 Mochizuki/Ichikawa teaches The road surface illuminating device according to claim 1.
Mochizuki/Ichikawa does not teach wherein the vehicle is an emergency vehicle and the illumination controller allows emission of the patterned light that extends in a direction parallel to a lane while overlapping a roadway center line or a lane boundary line when the vehicle makes an emergency run.
Navarro in analogous art, teaches wherein the vehicle is an emergency vehicle, (Navarro [0020] reads “The illustrative lighting units 114, 138 may emit light 204 continuously (e.g., uninterrupted), according to a predetermined pattern, or may not emit light at all, as desired by the user. Furthermore, the lighting units 114, 138 may emit light of a single color, or multiple colors (e.g., blue and red). The lighting units 114, 138 are illustratively electrically coupled to a conventional light control unit (not shown) operably coupled to the vehicle 200, in a known manner.” It would be appreciated by one with ordinary skill in the art that emergency personal would only turn on their emergency lights while preforming an act that is an emergency.);
when the vehicle makes an emergency run. (Navarro [0020] reads “The illustrative lighting units 114, 138 may emit light 204 continuously (e.g., uninterrupted), according to a predetermined pattern, or may not emit light at all, as desired by the user. Furthermore, the lighting units 114, 138 may emit light of a single color, or multiple colors (e.g., blue and red). The lighting units 114, 138 are illustratively electrically coupled to a conventional light control unit (not shown) operably coupled to the vehicle 200, in a known manner.” It would be appreciated by one with ordinary skill in the art that emergency personal would only turn on their emergency lights while preforming an act that is an emergency.);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Mochizuki/Ichikawa with that of Navarro to include the ability to place this lighting system onto an emergency vehicle. This would allow for the emergency vehicle to be better spotted when it is on the way to an emergency. (Navarro [0002] reads “Utility and emergency vehicles are often outfitted with lighting assemblies, including aftermarket lighting assemblies, to increase visibility to other drivers and, at times, used to communicate while moving through traffic. Often, these lighting assemblies are installed on the front end of the vehicle, but installation is burdensome and requires removal of the existing fascia or vehicle grille. Furthermore, conventional front-end lighting assemblies are typically only visible from the front of the vehicle and may be hindered by a guard or other front-end tactical vehicle protection, which requires an emergency vehicle, for example, to drive further into an active intersection and risk a collision. Less invasive, more visible options are desired.”);
Mochizuki/Ichikawa/Navarro does not teach and the illumination controller allows emission of the patterned light that extends in a direction parallel to a lane while overlapping a roadway center line or a lane boundary line.
Nagata in analogous art, teaches and the illumination controller allows emission of the patterned light that extends in a direction parallel to a lane while overlapping a roadway center line or a lane boundary line (Nagata [0353] reads “Moreover, boundary line patterns 9 indicating the boundary lines 51 of the travel lane 40 a are projected on the front of the vehicle 1. A boundary line pattern 9 a of them, which is projected on the right side in the figure. The boundary line pattern 9 a is projected overlapping white lines (center lines) indicating a boundary to an opposite lane. Moreover, a boundary line pattern 9 b projected on the left side in the figure is projected overlapping curbs that are a boundary to a sidewalk”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Mochizuki/Ichikawa/Navarro with that of Nagata to include a method that would allow for the system to cover up centerlines on roadways. This would allow for the emergency vehicle to better communicate the direction that it would like to travel in. (Nagata [0004 – 0005] reads “Presenting a traveling direction of the vehicle as described above can call attention of people inside and outside the vehicle. In an actual traffic environment, it is necessary to call attention to various targets in addition to the traveling direction of the vehicle, and it is desirable to provide a technology capable of enhancing the safety for driving. In view of the above-mentioned circumstances, it is an objective of the present technology to provide an information processing apparatus, an information processing method, a program, and a projection apparatus by which the safety for driving can be enhanced.”);
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Mochizuki/Ichikawa, in further view of Motoyama (US 20220340130 A1).
Regarding claim 9 Mochizuki/Ichikawa teaches The road surface illuminating device according to claim 1, wherein the illumination controller shapes the patterned light in a manner to avoid interference with the obstacle, (Ichikawa [0092] reads “FIG. 8A is a view in which marks and the like informing the driver in a following vehicle in an adjacent lane of a lane change of the host vehicle are depicted on the road surface with laser light by the vehicle lamp (1 or 45). In the vehicle lamp (1 or 45), the lane change direction of the host vehicle detected by the turn signal lamp switch 64 or the steering operation detecting mechanism 65 is detected, and first to third arrow marks (66 to 68) indicating a lane change of the host vehicle My changing the lane from a traveling lane R11 to an adjacent lane R12 are depicted based on the detection result. Even though a turn signal lamp of the host vehicle My cannot be viewed, a driver in a different vehicle Otr can avoid a minor collision by visually recognizing the first to third arrow marks (66 to 68) in front thereof.” It would be appreciated by one with ordinary skill in the art that this area would be the space where the passing vehicle does not collide with the vehicle in the other lane.);
as a result of avoiding the interference with the obstacle. (Ichikawa [0092] reads “FIG. 8A is a view in which marks and the like informing the driver in a following vehicle in an adjacent lane of a lane change of the host vehicle are depicted on the road surface with laser light by the vehicle lamp (1 or 45). In the vehicle lamp (1 or 45), the lane change direction of the host vehicle detected by the turn signal lamp switch 64 or the steering operation detecting mechanism 65 is detected, and first to third arrow marks (66 to 68) indicating a lane change of the host vehicle My changing the lane from a traveling lane R11 to an adjacent lane R12 are depicted based on the detection result. Even though a turn signal lamp of the host vehicle My cannot be viewed, a driver in a different vehicle Otr can avoid a minor collision by visually recognizing the first to third arrow marks (66 to 68) in front thereof.” It would be appreciated by one with ordinary skill in the art that this area would be the space where the passing vehicle does not collide with the vehicle in the other lane.);
Mochizuki/Ichikawa does not teach and the illumination controller issues an alert to a passenger of the vehicle when the length of the patterned light becomes shorter than a predetermined reference pattern length.
Motoyama in analogous art, teaches and the illumination controller issues an alert to a passenger of the vehicle when the length of the patterned light becomes shorter than a predetermined reference pattern length (Motoyama [0095] reads “The automated driving control unit 112 performs control related to automated driving such as autonomous traveling or driving support. Specifically, for example, the automated driving control unit 112 performs cooperative control for the purpose of implementing functions of an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) including collision avoidance or shock mitigation of the own vehicle, follow-up traveling based on an inter-vehicle distance, vehicle speed maintaining traveling, warning for collision of the own vehicle, or warning for lane departure of the own vehicle.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Mochizuki/Ichikawa with that of Motoyama to include a method for notifying the occupant of the vehicle of the situation that is going on outside of the vehicle. This would allow for safer condition for the occupants of the vehicle. (Motoyama [0002 – 0004] reads “In a case where automated driving is generalized and put into practical use, autonomous traveling is safely performed by, in a normal state, traveling in a traveling lane assumed as a route to a destination while checking a situation of surroundings. However, in an emergency event in which an emergency vehicle is approaching, it is necessary to safely pull a vehicle body to a roadside zone or the like that is different from a traveling lane, that is, a zone that is normally not for travelling, and clear the traveling lane for the emergency vehicle. Thus, a technology for safely pulling over a vehicle has been proposed in which, at the time of emergency, a road shoulder is detected, it is determined whether or not the road shoulder is available for pulling over, and the vehicle is pulled over if the road shoulder is available for pulling over (see Patent Document 1).”);
Other references not Cited
Throughout examination other references were found that could read onto the prior art. Though these references were not used in this examination they could be used in future examination and could read on the contents of the current disclosure. These references are, Fujisaki (JP 2016143399 A); Suzuki (JP 2020131897 A); Nakabayashi (US 20200339031 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN MARTIN O'MALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6228. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at (571) 270 - 5744. 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.
/JOHN MARTIN O'MALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658