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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-6 are pending for examination in this Office action.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (Son; US 2017/0259731) in view of Yoshihiro (Yoshihiro; JP 2015116010) and further in view of Sobecki et al. (Sobecki; US 2017/0106836).
As per claim 1, Son teaches an advance notice system for giving, an advance notice of availability of an area (one or more advance notice generation systems for notifying an exiting vehicle 10 and an availability of a parking area, see e.g. FIG. 14), the advance notice system comprising:
a projection device configured to project a predetermined pattern on a projection surface that is a surface close to the area in response to an instruction (one or more patterns projected on a road surface, see e.g. FIG. 16, which is the surface close to the parked area, wherein the patterns are in response to an instruction i.e. a reverse movement [when the vehicle is switched from a parked state to reverse]; see e.g. abstract, para. [0044] and [0061-63]); and
a vehicle control device including a preparation detection unit configured to detect a preparatory operation that is an operation performed before a vehicle leaves the area (a control device [including detection unit 100 and control unit 300] which can detect a vehicle state before vehicle leaves the area, i.e. shift stage currently being selected [Reverse or Drive]; see e.g. para. [0043-44]), and an instruction unit configured to give a start instruction to the projection device in response to detection of the preparatory operation, the start instruction being an instruction to start projection of the predetermined pattern (an inherent instruction unit in the detection and/or control units [100,300] would give a state instruction to the one or more projections device 200 to start projection of the discussed patterns after the reverse gear shift is detected; see e.g. para. [0043-45] and FIGS. 1, 10 and 14).
Son does not explicitly teach that the advance notice system is for a charging area where power feeding is performed from a power feeding apparatus to a vehicle and that the preparatory operation is a remote operation using one or more of keyless entry, a smart key, and a terminal, or activation of an on-vehicle device by remote control.
Yoshihiro, however, teaches a charging area where power feeding is performed from a power feeding apparatus to a vehicle (a charging device 2 which supplies power to one or more vehicles, see e.g. para. [0023] and [0044]), wherein the disclosed system can generate a notification to an owner as well as another waiting user (see e.g. para. [0006]). Similarly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to output the discloses pattern of Son for a charging area which charges an electric vehicle.
Son and Yoshihiro are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of reducing accidents around EV charging stations.
Son and Yoshihiro do not explicitly teach that the preparatory operation is a remote operation using one or more of keyless entry, a smart key, and a terminal, or activation of an on-vehicle device by remote control.
Sobecki, however, teaches preparatory operation is a remote operation using one or more of keyless entry, a smart key, and a terminal, or activation of an on-vehicle device by remote control (actuation of a remote keyless entry module, a passive keyless entry device or activation/deactivation operation of a security system of vehicle, see e.g. para. [0062], wherein a projection device is activated in response thereto; see e.g. para. [0039] and [0062]). Similarly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to activate a projection device in response to an approaching person for a remote keyless entry in the disclosed systems of Son and/or Sobecki.
Son, Yoshihiro and Sobecki are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of improving visibility and reducing trips or falls around vehicle due uneven surfaces, for example.
As per claim 2, the advance notice system according to claim 1 as taught by Son, Yoshihiro and Sobecki, further comprising: a change detection unit configured to detect a change in a state immediately before a vehicle leaves the charging area, wherein the instruction unit gives a stop instruction to the projection device in response to detection of the change, the stop instruction being an instruction to stop the projection of the predetermined pattern (as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1, a gear shift is detected and one or more warning signs are projected on a road surface (see e.g. para. [0043-45] of Son). In addition, it would have been obvious that if the gear is shifted to drive from reverse, the warning generation is stopped which can be accomplished by the disclosed detection and control unit of FIG. 3).
As per claim 6, an electric vehicle comprising the advance notice system according to claim 1 as taught by Son, Yoshihiro and Sobecki (the vehicle can be an electric vehicle; see e.g. para. [0039] of Son).
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son in view of Yoshihiro, Sobecki and further in view of Fukutaka et al. (Fukutaka; US 2021/0188159).
As per claim 3, the advance notice system according to claim 1 as taught by Son, Yoshihiro and Sobecki, except the claimed wherein a detection device configured to detect a vehicle around the charging area, wherein the instruction unit gives the start instruction to the projection device further on a basis of detection of the vehicle.
Fukutaka, however, teaches a detection device configured to detect a vehicle around an area, wherein the instruction unit gives the start instruction to projection device further on a basis of detection of the vehicle (notifying a person or another vehicle outside about state of a vehicle when another moving object is detected; see e.g. para. [0382]), wherein the notification is notification is generated by a control unit giving start instruction to one or more notification devices as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1.
Son, Yoshihiro, Sobecki and Fukutaka are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings to output notifications for the purpose of reducing accidents which is desired.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son, Yoshihiro, Sobecki in view of Lim (Lim; US 2020/0361368) and further in view of Stein et al. (Stein; US 2007/0115337).
As per claim 4, the advance notice system according to claim 1 as taught by Son, Yoshihiro and Sobecki, further comprising: a detection device configured to capture an image around the charging area, wherein the instruction unit gives an adjustment instruction to the projection device, the adjustment instruction being an instruction to adjust luminance of the predetermined pattern on a basis of brightness of an image acquired by the detection device.
Lim, however, teaches a detection device configured to capture data around an area, wherein the instruction unit gives an adjustment instruction to projection device, the adjustment instruction being an instruction to adjust luminance of the predetermined pattern on a basis of brightness of the data acquired by the detection device (an illumination sensor, which can detect brightness from an environment, for detecting illumination or ambient light in or around detection area, wherein brightness of a produced notification is adjusted based on the gather data by the illumination sensor; see e.g. para. [0032] and FIG. 7). Son, Yoshihiro, Sobecki and Lim are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings to output notifications for the purpose of reducing accidents.
Lim does not explicitly teach that the camera is the illumination light sensor which captures images for the illumination sensing.
Stein, however, teaches camera is the illumination light sensor which captures images for the illumination sensing (one or more camera, which capture images as known in the art of cameras, wherein one of the disclosed cameras is a light sensor to determine day mode, dusk mode or night mode; see e.g. para. [0032]). Son, Yoshihiro, Sobecki, Lim and Stein are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings to replace the disclosed sensor of Lim with a camera for reducing cost for a dedicated sensor ambience or illumination sensor.
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son in view of Yoshihiro, Sobecki and further in view of Ohashi (Ohashi; US Patent No. 6,580,373)
As per claim 5, the as taught by Son and Yoshihiro advance notice system according to claim 1 as taught by Son, Yoshihiro and Sobecki, except the claimed wherein a detection device installed on a ground side and configured to capture the predetermined pattern projected on the projection surface; and a projection device installed on the ground side and configured to further project the predetermined pattern on another position of the projection surface by using the predetermined pattern captured by the detection device installed on the ground side.
Ohashi, however, teaches a detection device 2a which can capture one or more outside environments including but not limited to generated patterns and reproduce or project the captured patterns on another position, display 7 for example (see e.g. FIG. 4 and abstract), by using the one or more predetermined patterns of the environment and captured by the detection device 2a (see e.g. FIG. 4 and abstract). Similarly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to capture the generated pattern of the disclosed system Son by an external camera and reproduce that image externally to a different position or location.
Son, Yoshihiro, Sobecki and Ohashi are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of increasing awareness (by duplicating the alert pattern) for an increased number of vehicles or external users.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references 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 MUHAMMAD ADNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3705. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10AM-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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MUHAMMAD ADNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688