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
This Office Action is in response to communications filed on 12/03/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 12/03/2024 and 5051/2025 are 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 § 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 factual inquiries 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.
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 factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-7, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Strugg (EP 2700 612) in view of Hirai et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2017/203685).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, STRUGG teaches an industrial vehicle / image projection method (Fig 1, forklift) comprising:
a detector (inferred because the travelling direction and the traveling speed of the own vehicle are parameters used for determining the animation image, see for example [0031], [0033]) configured to detect a traveling direction and a traveling speed of the own vehicle;
a generator (implicit) configured to generate an animation image in which display information moves ("Lightwave", Para, [0031]) principle, it is conceivable to provide for a design of the shape of the projection surface by means of a repeated sequence of shortening of the distance relative to the warning device as the only directional indication independent of a geometry); and
a projector (3, 4) configured to project the animation image onto a predetermined projection area (16, 17) on a road surface (18) around the own vehicle.
Strugg does not expressly teach that the display information moves at the traveling speed. Hirai from an analogous vehicle with light animation on road surface illumination apparatus art teaches the concept (shown in FIGS. 6A to 6F) of a vehicle and the display information moving at the vehicle’s traveling speed (¶072; in the case of the light animation shown in FIGS. 6A to 6F, the road surface illumination apparatus further illuminates a rear road surface with a graphic, such as bow-shaped lines pointing in the backward direction, and repeatedly applies an animation in which six bow-shaped lines flow in the backward direction in such a way that the bow-shaped lines vary from those shown in FIG. 10D, via those shown in FIG. 10E, to those shown in FIG. 10F. Further, by causing the bow-shaped lines to move at the same speed as the speed at which the standing vehicle starts moving backward, the road surface illumination apparatus can express a realistic feeling. It is assumed that the light animation setting unit 3 holds information about a typical speed, etc. at the time that the vehicle starts moving backward). Therefore, it would’ve been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to combine the vehicle of STRUGG with the concept of the display information moving at the traveling speed, as taught by Hirai in order to express a realistic feeling about the vehicle’s environment and also enhance safety within that environment.
Regarding claim 2, Strugg and Hirai teach the industrial vehicle according to claim 1, and Hirai further teaches wherein the projector projects the animation image onto the road surface in the traveling direction (see Figs 6, 10). Therefore, it would’ve been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to combine the vehicle of STRUGG with the concept wherein the projector projects the animation image onto the road surface in the traveling direction, as taught by Hirai in order to enhance safety within that environment.
Regarding claim 4, Strugg and Hirai teach the industrial vehicle according to claim 1, and Hirai further teaches wherein the projector sets the projection area such that the animation image is projected longer in the traveling direction as the traveling speed increases (¶008; increasing the length of the visible light pattern when the vehicle travels at a high speed, but the visible light pattern is changed in accordance with the speed at which the vehicle is traveling). Therefore, it would’ve been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to combine the vehicle of STRUGG with the concept wherein the projector sets the projection area such that the animation image is projected longer in the traveling direction as the traveling speed increases, as taught by Hirai in order to enhance safety within that environment.
Regarding claim 5, Strugg and Hirai teach the industrial vehicle according to claim 1, and Hirai further teaches wherein the generator generates the animation image including character information as the display information (see Figs 6, 10). Therefore, it would’ve been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to combine the vehicle of STRUGG with the concept wherein the generator generates the animation image including character information as the display information, as taught by Hirai in order to enhance safety within that environment.
Regarding claim 6, Strugg and Hirai teach the industrial vehicle according to claim 1, and Hirai teaches further comprising a human sensor (object detector 21) configured to sense presence of a person around the own vehicle (¶090’ object detector 21 acquires sensing information from sensors mounted in a vehicle, and detects the positions of pedestrians, other vehicles, etc.) wherein the generator generates the animation image in which the display information is emphasized when the human sensor senses the presence of the person (¶091-¶092; the illumination method determination unit determines a method of extending the illuminated range of a light animation toward a direction in which a pedestrian or another vehicle is existing, or making the light animation more noticeable as the light animation gets closer to a pedestrian or another vehicle). Therefore, it would’ve been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to combine the vehicle of STRUGG with the concept wherein the generator generates the animation image in which the display information is emphasized when the human sensor senses the presence of the person, as taught by Hirai in order to enhance safety within that environment.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Strugg (EP 2700 612) in view of Hirai et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2017/203685) further in view of Menjo (WO 2023/085000).
Regarding claim 3, Strugg and Hirai teach the industrial vehicle according to claim 1, but both are silent on wherein the generator generates the animation image such that transparency of the display information at an end in the traveling direction increases toward the end.
Menjo from an analogous road surface-marking light installed in a vehicle art teaches the concept wherein the generator generates the animation image such that transparency of the display information at an end in the traveling direction increases toward the end (see Fig 9).
Therefore, it would’ve been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to combine the vehicle of STRUGG with the concept wherein the generator generates the animation image in which the display information is emphasized when the human sensor senses the presence of the person, as taught by Menjo in order to further enhance safety within that environment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANCIL H LITTLEJOHN JR whose telephone number is (571)270-3718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 (CST).
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571) 272-3114. 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.
/MANCIL LITTLEJOHN JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2685
/QUAN ZHEN WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2685