Notice of Final Rejection
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over US20170203685 A1 by Hirai and Claims 2-6 are rejected further in view of US20180004020 A1 by Kunii. However, applicant argues that Hirai reference did not reasonably disclose and there is no motivation or rational except applicant’s invention as guidance or hindsight reasoning.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments. A detail explanation is given below.
Referring to claim 1 the issues raised by applicant are: a) Figures 10E-F of Hirai reference fails to represent claim 1. b) Paragraph [0072] does not disclose determination of a non-reverse operation nor the action of turning off the road surface drawing device. c) paragraph [0076] failing to disclose or teach turn off the road surface drawing device in response to determining that the operation state is not the reverse operation, as required by the claim 1. Hence, Hirari does not teach or suggest the claim 1. Also, there is no motivation for ordinary skill to supply the missing elements without the benefit of applicant’s own disclosure as guide. (or hindsight reasoning of examiner).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, examiner respectfully submits that applicant has conveniently ignored the Fig 1, 2, and 9-11 and other paragraphs [0042]-[0048]. [0055], [0069] and teachings and disclosures there. Examiner identifies and points that certain limitations which are sufficient enough for the ordinary skill to do the obvious variations. Hence, various embodiments of Hirai reference and their combination suggests the claimed invention in claim 1. Hence, claim 1 is rejected under obviousness. Hence, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The abstract of the Hirai and the identified paragraphs for certain elements of claim 1 of instant application, appropriately teaches and suggests the obvious variations which are within the scope of an person with ordinary skill of the art. Hence, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Referring to depending claims 2-6, since applicant has failed to rebut the rejection of claim 1, arguments related to claims 2-6 are also not persuasive.
Examiner has clearly pointed out allowable subject matter in independent claims 7, 12 and how it is different from the prior art. Hence, applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 and depending claims 2-6 are not persuasive. Hence, examiner is going for final rejection. However, examiner is willing to consider if applicant is cancelling claims 1-6 or amend independent claim 1 using the allowable subject matter from claim 7 or claim 12.
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.
Claims 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20170203685 A1 by Hirai et al (Hirai)
Referring to claim 1 Hirai Fig 1-13 teaches a road surface drawing device (Fig 1 item 3 animation setting device paragraph [0033]) for a vehicle (item 100) and for projecting an image based on a drawing pattern onto a road surface a light illuminating the road surface (paragraph [0033] where a laser device is illuminating the area with light animation setting device See Fig 3, 4, 5A-D), the road surface drawing device comprising :
a road surface drawing device (Fig 3 item 3 and paragraph [0039]) configured to irradiate the road surface with light to project the image on the road surface ( see abstract, paragraph [0039]) ;
a controller configured to control the projection of the image by the road surface drawing device (See Fig 1 CAN item 1); and an operation state acquisition device configured to acquire an operation state of a vehicle (See Fig 2 paragraph [0042]-[0048]),
wherein the controller (Fig 1 CAN item 1) is configured to: control the road surface drawing device in a reverse mode in response to determining that the operation state (See Paragraph [0055]) is reverse operation (In another embodiment Hirai teaches operating the vehicle in backward moment Fig 9-11 paragraph [0069]) ; and turn off the road surface drawing device in response to determining that the operation state is not the reverse operation. (In another embodiment holding the information by animation device 3 and vehicle 100 is not in backward motion Fig 10E-F see paragraph [0072]).
Hence, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to combine all the embodiments and define the vehicle operation according to the drawing device response. (See abstract).
Claims 2-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai reference as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US20180004020 A1 by Kunii et al (Kunii).
Referring to claim 2 Hirai modified reference teaches the road surface drawing device for a vehicle according to 1 Hirai teaches wherein the controller is configured to: acquire a steering angle included in the operation state in the reverse mode (See paragraphs [00068] [0077]); but Hirai is silent or do not explicitly teaches in a case where the steering angle is equal to or less than a predetermined angle, cause the road surface drawing device to project the image in a normal state; and in a case where the steering .angle is larger than the predetermined angle, cause the road surface drawing device to project the image in a parking state different from the normal state.
However, Kunii teaches steering angle data and image projection and information of predetermined from inputted data from the sensor in a operating state and synchronizing (See Fig 7 paragraph [0067]).
Hence, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant application to incorporate Kunii 's teachings of image projection apparatus steering wheel angle teachings in to the Hirai 's vehicle road surface illumination apparatus and compare the steering angle with predetermined angle and adjust the lighting accordingly (See paragraph [0067]).
Referring to claim 3 Hirai S reference as modified by Kunii 's reference teaches the road surface drawing device for a vehicle according to 2 Kunii further teaches wherein, in the parking state, the controller is configured to cause the road surface drawing device to project the image formed by irradiation with less light than the image formed in the normal state. (See Fig 14, 15 paragraph [0080] [0081]).
Referring to claim 4 Hirai S reference as modified by Kunii 's reference teaches the road surface drawing device for a vehicle according to 2 for a vehicle according to wherein, in the parking state, the controller is configured to cause the road surface drawing device to change a projection direction of the image, according to the steering angle. (See Fig 14, 15 paragraph [0080] [0081]).
Referring to claim 5 Hirai modified reference teaches the road surface drawing device for a vehicle according to 1 wherein the controller is configured to: acquire transmission information included in the operation state, in a case where the transmission information is reverse, determine that the reverse operation is performed and in a case where the transmission information changes from the reverse, continues the determination of the reverse operation for a predetermined period. (See Fig 15 16 paragraph [0080], [0081]).
Referring to the claim 6 Hirai Fig 1- 15 teaches a road surface drawing method for a vehicle for projecting an image based on a drawing pattern(Fig 1 item 3 animation setting device paragraph [0033]) onto a road surface (See paragraph [0033] where a laser device is illuminating the area with light animation setting device See Fig 3, 4, 5A- D), the road surface drawing method comprising : a road surface drawing step of irradiating the road surface with light to project the image on the road surface see abstract, paragraph [0039]) ; and an operation state acquisition step of acquiring an operation state of a vehicle, (See Fig 1 CAN item 1); wherein control is performed in a reverse mode in response to determining that the operation state is reverse operation(In another embodiment Hirai teaches operating the vehicle in backward moment Fig 9-11 paragraph [0069]), and the image is turned off in response to determining that the operation state is not the reverse operation. (In another embodiment holding the information by animation device 3 and vehicle 100 is not in backward motion Fig 10E-F see paragraph [0072]).
Hence, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to combine all the embodiments and define the vehicle operation according to the drawing device response. (See abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-12 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Referring to claims 7, 12 the closest prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest that a comparison device configured to compare the projection drawing pattern with a basic drawing pattern; and a controller configured to, in a case where there is a difference between the projection drawing pattern and the basic drawing pattern, change a lighting state of the road surface drawing device. Hence, claim 7 and depending claims 8-11 and claim 12 are allowed.
Conclusion
Claims 1-6 are rejected.
Claims 7-12 are allowed.
The prior of art made of record and not relied upon is considered to pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the notice of references cited PTOL 892 attached here with. The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicants. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SRINIVAS SATHIRAJU whose telephone number is (571)272-4250. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-3:30PM, 5PM -8:30PM.
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, ALEXANDER H TANINGCO can be reached at 5712728048. 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.
/SRINIVAS SATHIRAJU/
07/18/2026
SRINIVAS . SATHIRAJU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights