DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/16/2025 and 11/25/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mochizuki (EP 3 858 672).
Regarding claim 1, Mochizuki teaches a road surface rendering device configured to perform road surface rendering indicating at least a concept which is the same as a concept indicated by a direction indicator (Fig. 2, 27, [0030] departure notification lamp 2, emit light onto a road surface),
wherein an emission-enabled region of the road surface rendering device includes a first region that is visible to another traffic participant behind an own vehicle (Fig. 2, rear of the vehicle, rear lamps 4) and a second region that is invisible to the another traffic participant (Fig. 2, front of the vehicle, head lamps 1), and
wherein road surface rendering in the first region and road surface rendering in the second region are individually controllable ([0059] the control unit 5 determines a traveling direction…, and determines a display direction).
Regarding claim 2, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Mochizuki.
Mochizuki further teaches the device, wherein the road surface rendering indicating the concept which is the same as the concept indicated by the direction indicator is road surface rendering extending laterally from the own vehicle (Fig. 2, 27).
Regarding claim 3, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Mochizuki.
Mochizuki further teaches the device, wherein a variable image is rendered in at least the second region (Fig. 2, Fr. [0041] display 27 gradually advances).
Regarding claim 4, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Mochizuki.
Mochizuki further teaches the device wherein a length of the second region in a width direction of the own vehicle is 100% or less of a length of the own vehicle in the width direction (Fig. 2, 27, at least 100% of a length of the own vehicle).
Regarding claim 5, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Mochizuki.
Mochizuki further teaches the device, wherein a mode of the road surface rendering in the first region changes in accordance with surrounding environment information on the own vehicle ([0015] ON to OFF after detection of a necessary target detected).
Regarding claim 10, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Mochizuki.
Mochizuki further teaches the device, wherein a lighting mode of the road surface rendering device when the road surface rendering is not performed in the first region is different from a lighting mode of the road surface rendering device when the road surface rendering is performed in a region including at least the first region (Fig. 5, [0028] forward or rearward depending on the moving direction).
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 of this title, 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 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki (EP 3 858 672) in view of Sturmat (US 2023/0286431 A1).
Regarding claim 6, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Mochizuki.
Mochizuki does not explicitly teach the device, wherein the road surface rendering device is configured to display a welcome sign, and wherein the road surface rendering in the second region is brighter than the road surface rendering in the first region when the road surface rendering device displays the welcome sign.
Sturmat teaches a device, wherein the road surface rendering device is configured to display a welcome sign, and wherein the road surface rendering in the second region is brighter than the road surface rendering in the first region when the road surface rendering device displays the welcome sign ([0026] welcoming illumination, increase in the light intensity 6, 6’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention in order to enhance and simplify the interaction between human and the vehicle (Sturmat, [0005]).
Regarding claim 7, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Mochizuki.
Mochizuki does not explicitly teach the device, wherein the road surface rendering device is configured to display a welcome sign, and wherein the road surface rendering device performs the road surface rendering in the second region and does not perform the road surface rendering in the first region when the road surface rendering device displays the welcome sign.
Sturmat teaches a device, wherein the road surface rendering device is configured to display a welcome sign, and wherein the road surface rendering device performs the road surface rendering in the second region and does not perform the road surface rendering in the first region when the road surface rendering device displays the welcome sign ([0026] welcoming illumination, performed with headlights).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention in order to enhance and simplify the interaction between human and the vehicle (Sturmat, [0005]).
Regarding claim 8, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Mochizuki.
Mochizuki does not explicitly teach the device, wherein the road surface rendering in the second region is brighter than the road surface rendering in the first region when there is the another traffic participant behind the own vehicle.
Sturmat teaches a device, wherein the road surface rendering in the second region is brighter than the road surface rendering in the first region ([0026] welcoming illumination, performed with headlights).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention in order to enhance and simplify the interaction between human and the vehicle (Sturmat, [0005]).
The combined teachings of Mochizuki in view of Sturmat do not explicitly teach wherein the brighter road rendering in the second region is when there is the another traffic participant behind the own vehicle.
However, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions or variable are critical. As such, the claimed variable (when there is the another traffic participant behind the own vehicle) appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki (EP 3 858 672).
Regarding claim 9, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Mochizuki.
Mochizuki further teaches the device wherein the road surface rendering device performs the road surface rendering in a region including at least the first region (Fig. 2, 27 in rear direction).
Mochizuki does not explicitly teach the device wherein the road surface rendering device performs the road surface rendering in a region including at least the first region when there is no other traffic participant behind the own vehicle, and wherein the road surface rendering device does not perform the road surface rendering in the first region when there is the another traffic participant behind the own vehicle.
However, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions or variable are critical. As such, the claimed variable (performs the road surface rendering when there is no other traffic participant behind the own vehicle, and does not perform the road surface rendering when there is the another traffic participant behind the own vehicle) appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975)
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
OTHERSEN (DE 102018206087 A1) see Figure 1 discloses a method for communication of a motor vehicle with a road user, which takes place in such a way that the road user is informed about a planned maneuver of the motor vehicle or an imminent door opening in the motor vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKJIN KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
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 Taningco can be reached at (571) 272-8048. 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.
/SEOKJIN KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights