DETAILED ACTION
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) 1, 3, 4, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukata (U.S. 2021/0188159) in view of Sugiyama (US 2019/0322209).
Regarding claim 1, Fukutaka teaches a road surface drawing method (see fig. 9a ) comprising:
drawing a light pattern a road surface by a drawing lamp configured to be mounted to a vehicle (mounted to vehicle);
wherein an irradiation region of the light pattern changes in a drawing region (band shaped animation, see p. 0248) set in a surrounding region of the vehicle, the drawing region including a farthest region provided at part including a tip portion (farthest pattern) of the drawing region farthest from the vehicle, a nearest region closest to the vehicle, and one or more intermediate regions between the farthest region and the nearest region (see fig. 9a),
wherein a first light pattern, in which far light is drawn at least in the farthest region but no intermediate light is drawn in the one or more intermediate regions is formed first as the light pattern (“In the animation, a series of operations is repeated in which a light pattern is sequentially lit from a light pattern farthest from the vehicle 100 to a light pattern closest to the vehicle 100 and then all the light patterns are extinguished.” See p. 0248);
wherein a second light pattern (end pattern all three lights illuminated) in which near light is drawn at least in the nearest region, intermediate light is drawn in at least one of the one or more intermediate regions, and the far light is drawn in the farthest region (“In the animation, a series of operations is repeated in which a light pattern is sequentially lit from a light pattern farthest from the vehicle 100 to a light pattern closest to the vehicle 100 and then all the light patterns are extinguished.”) is second formed as the light pattern,
wherein the far light is maintained in at least the farthest region during the entire light pattern (far light is illuminated for entire pattern), and
wherein the near light drawn in the nearest region, the intermediate light drawn in the one or more intermediate regions, and the far light drawn in the farthest the farthest region extend in a line from the vehicle to the tip portion (see fig. 9a).
Fukata does not teach that the farthest region is irradiated by a third light source, the nearest region being irradiated by a first light source, and the one or more intermediate regions being irradiated by a second light source.
Sugiyama teaches (see fig. 2, 3) that the farthest region is irradiated by a third light source (34, illuminated by 24), the nearest region being irradiated by a first light source(31, illuminated by 21), and the one or more intermediate regions being irradiated by a second light source(33, illuminated by 23).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used individual light sources as taught by Sugiyama to illuminate each portion of the pattern of Fukata to create the pattern using a low cost, low power consumption device with proper focal lengths, see p. 0015 of Sugiyama.
Regarding claim 3, Fukutata teaches that the light pattern is drawn in the drawing region in response to a signal indicating a change in a travel state being acquired from the vehicle (boarding guidance, see p. 0248).
Regarding claim 4, Fukutata teaches that the light pattern includes vehicle information on the vehicles, and wherein the vehicle information is drawn in a vicinity of the tip portion (boarding guidance, drawn at tip portion).
Regarding claim 7, Fukutata teaches further comprising:
Controlling the road surface drawing lamp by a control unit (determination unit 31, control unit 32); and
detecting obstacle information on an obstacle (pedestrian or corner, see p. 0330) that is present around the vehicle and limits a view angle of the vehicle,
transmitting the obstacle information to the lamp control unit in response to the obstacle being detected, and
controlling the road surface drawing lamp such that the light pattern is drawn based on the obstacle information (see p. 0329-0332).
Claims 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukutata in view of Salter (U.S. 10,040,392).
Regarding claim 5, Fukutata does not teach after drawing the first light pattern, the light pattern such that illuminance thereof gradually decreases.
Salter teaches that after drawing the first light pattern, the light pattern such that illuminance thereof gradually decreases (controls light intensity based on variety of parameters, see col. 5 lines 29-60, see col. 5 lines 61- col. 6 line 25).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a gradual decrease after the initial light pattern as taught by Salter to prevent a harsh change in the lighting and therefore increase the user comfort in observing the pattern of Fukutata, as is known in the art.
The Examiner notes that the limitation “gradually” is not defined. Figure 7a-7d shows a reduction in luminance as parts of the lighting is deactivated, the Examiner finds that this is a gradual decrease of overall luminance.
Claims 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukutata.
Regarding claim 6, Fukutata does not specifically teach that the tip portion of the drawing region exists in a range of 2 m or more and 10 m or less from the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have optimized the distance of operation of the drawing region. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456.
The range of the drawing region depends on the needs of the vehicle, optimizing such is obvious to not be obtrusive to other drivers or pedestrians, while still being easily observed and conveying information.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2/13/2026 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.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Fukata fails to teach that the farthest region is illuminated upon the first or initial lighting of the scene, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Fukata specifically recites that the farthest region is illuminated first and maintained through the entire pattern as indicated above in p. 0248.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Fukata does not teach “a traffic participant around a vehicle can recognize a sequential light pattern at an early stage”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Such a recitation is not included in the claims. There is requirement of “a traffic participant” or “recognition” of a sequential light pattern by so. Furthermore, such a requirement would be entirely subjective upon the participant and unclear what metes and bounds are set forth by such a limitation. Fukata also teaches that a traffic participant would recognize the sequential light pattern of p. 0248 in the same manner as Applicant’s as the farthest region is illuminated first.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J PEERCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6570. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm EST.
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, James Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711. 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.
/Matthew J. Peerce/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875