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
Claims 1-10 and 18 are cancelled. Claims 11 and 19 are amended. Claims 11-17 and 19-21 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida (JP 2019177822A) in view of (KR 20090011400U) herein referred to as ‘400.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Nishida discloses a single-track vehicle (motorcycle 10 of fig. 1), comprising:
a controller (control device 78 of fig. 4); and
a vehicle state (pg. 4 last para.; operation related to the projection of the image of the switch 64 from the projection device 62 to the transparent electrode 60 when the motorcycle 10 is traveling is the same as the first display example of FIGS. 6 to 9) display comprising:
at least one projection surface (transparent electrode 60 of fig. 3),
a cover that at least partially forms a bench seat (seat 12 of fig. 1), and
wherein the controller (78) is configured to control the illuminant (the light source within the projector 62 of fig. 3);
to generate a first light image corresponding to a first vehicle state and a second light image corresponding to a second vehicle state on the projection surface (abstract; a projector 62 that projects an image of a switch 64 relating to an operation of the motorcycle 10).
Nishida fails to teach wherein the at least one illuminant and the cover are arranged such that light emitted by the at least one illuminant is perceptible only indirectly from outside the vehicle.
‘400 discloses wherein the at least one illuminant (light emitting members 1 of fig. 2) and the cover (seat S of fig. 2) are arranged such that light emitted by the at least one illuminant (1) is perceptible only indirectly from outside the vehicle wherein the light emitted by the at least one illuminant is perceptible to a human from surroundings of the single-track vehicle (illustrated in fig. 1 and pg. 3 1st para.; the electric scooter can be easily recognized by pedestrians or vehicles as well as the electric scooter that is running slowly or stopped).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the application to modify display system of Nishida with the safety system of ‘400 in order to alert the pedestrians and other vehicles the state of the motorcycle (‘400; Abstract).
Regarding claim 16, Nishida discloses a single-track vehicle (motorcycle 10 of fig. 1), comprising: a controller (control device 78 of fig. 4); and a vehicle state (pg. 4 last para.; operation related to the projection of the image of the switch 64 from the projection device 62 to the transparent electrode 60 when the motorcycle 10 is traveling is the same as the first display example of FIGS. 6 to 9).
Nishida fails to teach wherein the first light image and the second light image are generated within an at least partly overlapping region of the projection surface.
‘400 discloses wherein the first light image (“L” of fig. 4 indication lights indicating a left turn) and the second light image (“R” of fig. 4 indication lights indicating a left turn) are generated within an at least partly overlapping region of the projection surface (illustrated in fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the application to modify display system of Nishida with the safety system of ‘400 in order to alert the pedestrians and other vehicles the state of the motorcycle (‘400; Abstract).
Regarding claim 17, Nishida discloses a single-track vehicle (motorcycle 10 of fig. 1), comprising: a controller (control device 78 of fig. 4); and a vehicle state (pg. 4 last para.; operation related to the projection of the image of the switch 64 from the projection device 62 to the transparent electrode 60 when the motorcycle 10 is traveling is the same as the first display example of FIGS. 6 to 9).
Nishida fails to teach wherein the first or second light image comprise at least one of: a deictic sign, an iconic sign, a symbolic sign, or an alphanumeric sign.
‘400 discloses wherein the first or second light image comprise at least one of: a deictic sign, an iconic sign, a symbolic sign, or an alphanumeric sign (illustrated in fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the application to modify display system of Nishida with the safety system of ‘400 in order to alert the pedestrians and other vehicles the state of the motorcycle (‘400; Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-15 and 17-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The subject matter of claim 13 was found to be allowable because an interspace is arranged between the at least one projection surface and the cover, and the interspace is delimited at least partly for the single-track vehicle along a vertical direction by the cover and a further component of the single-track vehicle, the further component being situated opposite the interspace.
Claims 14 and 15 are allowable as being dependent on claim 13.
The subject matter of claim 19 that was found to be allowable because the bench seat comprises a front section and a rear section, and the at least one illuminant is arranged on the underside of a part of the front section such that the illuminant has a height offset relative to the underside of the rear section.
Claim 20 is allowable as being dependent on claim 19.
The subject matter of claim 21 that was found to be allowable because the cover comprises an at least partly transparent section, through which a generated light image on the projection surface is visible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DANELL L OWENS whose telephone number is (571)270-5365. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm M-F.
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, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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.
/DANELL L OWENS/Examiner, Art Unit 2882 /TOAN TON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights