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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/06/2024 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 § 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.
Claims 1-14 are 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 claims 1-14, recited limitations in the claims fail to particularly point out whether the recited features of the claims are performed by the road surface rendering device.
For example, in claim 1, the claim directed to a road surface rendering device. The device “for projecting an area marker on a road surface, the road surface rendering device to be mounted on the vehicle” is intended use of the device; thus, no patentable weight.
In addition, it is unclear whether “wherein the area marker…” and “in a case where a traveling…the first region” are performed by the road surface rendering device; that is, it is unclear whether these limitations are part of the claimed invention that should be given patentable weight in the examination.
For the same reasons, claims 2-13 further define projection regions of the area marker without positively define these features are performed by the road surface rendering device. Thus, these claims are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites a road surface rendering device similar to device recited in claim 1 with features that are either intended use or fails to clearly define the recited features are part of the claimed invention (i.e. either part of the road surface rendering device, or features that are performed by the road surface rendering device).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe (WO 2021/039612 A1) (hereinafter rejections refer to provided equivalent English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe discloses a road surface rendering device (e.g. Fig. 6: 1a-1f) for projecting an area marker (e.g. Fig. 6: 20, 30, 50, 60) on a road surface around a vehicle (e.g. Fig. 6: 100), the road surface rendering device to be mounted on the vehicle (e.g. Fig. 6: 1a-1f),
wherein the area marker is configured to be constantly projected at least during nighttime traveling of the vehicle (e.g. p. 11-12: markers 20 and 30 are green normally when travelling), and in a case where a traveling state of the vehicle changes, a projection region of the area marker transitions from a first region (e.g. Fig. 6: 20, 21) to a second region (e.g. Fig. 6: 50-53) different from the first region (e.g. p. 12: in one embodiment, normally green marker 21 is turned off while projecting a specific marker 50 when the right turn signal lamp blinks).
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe discloses the second region is positioned farther from the vehicle as compared with the first region (e.g. Fig. 6: marker 50 is farther from the vehicle as compared to marker 20).
Regarding claim 3, Watanabe discloses the first region and the second region do not overlap each other (e.g. Fig. 6: 20 and 50 do not overlap).
Regarding claim 4, Watanabe discloses the second region includes the first region and a region other than the first region (e.g. p. 12: in one embodiment, marker 20 stays green while marker 50 lit up when the right turn signal lamp blinks; the second region is broadly interpreted as the combination of 20 and 50).
Regarding claim 5, Watanabe discloses a color of the area marker projected onto the first region and a color of the area marker projected onto the second region are different from each other (e.g. p. 12: marker 20 is green and marker 50 is orange).
Regarding claim 6, Watanabe discloses in a case where the traveling state changes such that a movement of the vehicle in a front and rear direction changes (e.g. p.12 turning with blinker on), the projection region of the area marker transitions from the first region to the second region (e.g. p. 12: in one embodiment, normally green marker 21 is turned off while projecting a specific marker 50 when the right turn signal lamp blinks), the second region being different in the front and rear direction from the first region (e.g. Fig. 6: marker 20 and 50 are not on the same front and rear vertical planar direction).
Regarding claim 10, Watanabe discloses the first region includes a first left side region positioned on a left side of the vehicle (e.g. Fig. 6: 31), the second region includes a second left side region positioned farther leftward from the vehicle as compared with the first left side region (e.g. Fig. 6: 60), and in a case where the vehicle turns left, the projection region of the area marker transitions from the first left side region to the second left side region (e.g. p. 11-13).
Regarding claim 11, Watanabe discloses the first region includes a first right side region positioned on a right side of the vehicle (e.g. Fig. 6: 21), the second region includes a second right side region positioned farther rightward from the vehicle as compared with the first right side region (e.g. Fig. 6: 50), and in a case where the vehicle turns right, the projection region of the area marker transitions from the first right side region to the second right side region (e.g. p. 11-13).
Regarding claim 12, Watanabe discloses the vehicle is a vehicle configured to turn by inclining a vehicle body in a bending direction (e.g. Fig. 6: motorcycle 100).
Regarding claim 13, Watanabe discloses the vehicle is a vehicle configured to turn by inclining a vehicle body in a bending direction (e.g. Fig. 6: motorcycle 100), in a case where the vehicle turns left, the projection region of the area marker is farther leftward as compared with the first left side region and the second left side region that are projected when the vehicle travels straight, and in a case where the vehicle turns right, the projection region of the area marker is farther rightward as compared with the first right side region and the second right side region that are projected when the vehicle travels straight (e.g. p. 11-13).
Regarding claim 14, Watanabe discloses a road surface rendering device (e.g. Fig. 6: 1a-1f) for projecting an area marker (e.g. Fig. 6: 20, 30, 50, 60) on a road surface around a vehicle (e.g. Fig. 6), the road surface rendering device to be mounted on the vehicle (e.g. Fig. 6: 1a-1f), wherein the area marker is configured to be constantly projected at least during nighttime traveling of the vehicle (e.g. p. 11-12: markers 20 and 30 are green normally when travelling), and in response to a determination that calling attention of an other a traffic participant is required (e.g. p. 11-12: area markers 20, 30, 50, 60 change according to turn signal lamps, and when CO in Fig. 4 receives signal indicating turn signal lamp is blinking, it implies a determination that attention of other traffic participant is required), a projection region of the area marker transitions from a first region to a second region different from the first region (e.g. p. 12: in one embodiment, normally green marker 21 is turned off while projecting a specific marker 50 when the right turn signal lamp blinks).
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.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (WO 2021/039612 A1) (hereinafter rejections refer to provided equivalent English translation) in view of Takii (WO 2020/036108 A1) (hereinafter rejections refer to provided equivalent English translation).
Regarding claim 15, Watanabe discloses a controller (e.g. Fig. 4: CO) configured to:
acquire a traveling state of the vehicle (e.g. p. 11-13: turning light blinking or not);
cause the projection region of the area marker to transition from the first region to the second region, in a case where the controller determines that the calling of attention is required (e.g. Fig. 6 and p. 11-13).
Watanabe fails to disclose, but Takii teaches acquire information on the traffic participant (e.g. p. 4-9: using camera to monitor surrounding area of the vehicle, and determining intention of another vehicle or pedestrian);
determine that the attention of the traffic participant is required to be called, in a case where the traveling state of the vehicle and the information on the traffic participant satisfy a predetermined condition (e.g. p. 3 and 10 & Figs. 4A and 7A: detected pedestrian and/or another vehicle in close proximity and warn them about the position of the host vehicle).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Watanabe with the teachings of Takii to project warning message on a road based on monitoring surrounding of a vehicle so as to improve notification awareness to pedestrian and/or other vehicles on the road.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAM WAN MA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3693. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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 at 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 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.
/KAM WAN MA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688