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 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, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki (WO 2020189636).
Regarding claim 1, An information processing apparatus comprising: a projection control section (“The projection control unit 230 controls projection of the projection image data performed by the projector 300. The projection control unit 230 includes a projection position determining unit 231, a projectability determining unit 232, a content determining unit 233, and a projection instructing unit 234.” Suzuki: paragraph 57)
that, according to a driving plan for a mobile body and road surface condition information indicating conditions of a road surface on which the mobile body is driving, controls output of projection information that is projected from the mobile body onto the road surface (“The projectability determining unit 232 determines whether the projection position determined by the projection position determining unit 231 is a projectable position on a road surface at which the projection image data is projected. Specifically, the projectability determining unit 232 determines whether unevenness of the road surface is within an allowable range, based on three-dimensional external information.” Suzuki: paragraph 59)
to establish communication with others. (“The notification determining unit 227 determines whether to cause the projector 300 to project projection image data, in accordance with the target specified by the notification target specifying unit 226. In other words, the notification determining unit 227 determines whether to notify the specified target of the presence of the vehicle 1.” Suzuki: paragraph 54)
Regarding claim 2, The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the road surface condition information includes unsuitable region information that indicates a location of an unsuitable region that is not suitable for projecting the projection information onto the road surface, and, according to the unsuitable region information, the projection control section controls the output of the projection information in such a manner as to avoid projection onto the unsuitable region. (“The projectability determining unit 232 determines whether the projection position determined by the projection position determining unit 231 is a projectable position on a road surface at which the projection image data is projected. Specifically, the projectability determining unit 232 determines whether unevenness of the road surface is within an allowable range, based on three-dimensional external information.” Suzuki: paragraph 59)
Regarding claim 4, The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the unsuitable region includes a surface irregularity or an obstacle. (“The projectability determining unit 232 determines whether the projection position determined by the projection position determining unit 231 is a projectable position on a road surface at which the projection image data is projected. Specifically, the projectability determining unit 232 determines whether unevenness of the road surface is within an allowable range, based on three-dimensional external information.” Suzuki: paragraph 59)
Regarding claim 5, The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the projection control section includes a projection information generation section that generates the projection information according to the driving plan, and a projection adjustment section that, according to the unsuitable region information, adjusts the projection information to be projected onto the road surface. (“In step S1102, when the projectability determining unit 232 determines that the road surface at the determined position is not a projectable road surface, the projection control unit 230 changes, via the projection position determining unit 231, the projection position (step S1105). Specifically, the projection position determining unit 231 changes the projection positions by making a projection area small.” Suzuki: paragraph 103)
Regarding claim 6, The information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the projection information includes projection location information that indicates a projection location of the projection information on the road surface, and the projection adjustment section changes the projection location information in a case where the unsuitable region is present at the projection location of the projection information. (“In step S1102, when the projectability determining unit 232 determines that the road surface at the determined position is not a projectable road surface, the projection control unit 230 changes, via the projection position determining unit 231, the projection position (step S1105). Specifically, the projection position determining unit 231 changes the projection positions by making a projection area small.” Suzuki: paragraph 103)
Regarding claim 7, The information processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the projection information further includes location changeability information that indicates whether the projection location is changeable, and the projection adjustment section changes the projection location information in a case where the location changeability information indicates that the projection location is changeable. (“In step S1102, when the projectability determining unit 232 determines that the road surface at the determined position is not a projectable road surface, the projection control unit 230 changes, via the projection position determining unit 231, the projection position (step S1105). Specifically, the projection position determining unit 231 changes the projection positions by making a projection area small.” Suzuki: paragraph 103)
Regarding claim 8, The information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein, in a case where the location changeability information indicates that the projection location is unchangeable, the projection adjustment section deletes a portion of the projection information that corresponds to the unsuitable region. (“In step S1102, when the projectability determining unit 232 determines that the road surface at the determined position is not a projectable road surface, the projection control unit 230 changes, via the projection position determining unit 231, the projection position (step S1105). Specifically, the projection position determining unit 231 changes the projection positions by making a projection area small.” Suzuki: paragraph 103)
Regarding claim 10, The information processing apparatus according to claim 5, further comprising: an unsuitable region detection section that detects the unsuitable region on the road surface, wherein the unsuitable region detection section excludes the projection information projected onto the road surface from targets for detection of the unsuitable region. (“The projectability determining unit 232 determines whether the projection position determined by the projection position determining unit 231 is a projectable position on a road surface at which the projection image data is projected. Specifically, the projectability determining unit 232 determines whether unevenness of the road surface is within an allowable range, based on three-dimensional external information.” Suzuki: paragraph 59)
Regarding claim 11, The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein, according to the driving plan and surroundings information regarding surroundings of the mobile body, the projection control section controls the output of the projection information in such a manner as to avoid projection onto the unsuitable region. (“In step S1102, when the projectability determining unit 232 determines that the road surface at the determined position is not a projectable road surface, the projection control unit 230 changes, via the projection position determining unit 231, the projection position (step S1105). Specifically, the projection position determining unit 231 changes the projection positions by making a projection area small.” Suzuki: paragraph 103)
Regarding claim 12, The information processing apparatus according to claim 11,wherein the surroundings information includes the projection information that is projected onto the road surface by the others. (“The projectability determining unit 232 determines whether the projection position determined by the projection position determining unit 231 is a projectable position on a road surface at which the projection image data is projected. Specifically, the projectability determining unit 232 determines whether unevenness of the road surface is within an allowable range, based on three-dimensional external information.” Suzuki: paragraph 59)
Regarding claim 13, The information processing apparatus according to claim 11,wherein the surroundings information includes traffic condition information indicating the traffic conditions around the mobile body. (“The priority estimation table 211 according to the first embodiment may be stored in the storage unit 210 in advance. The priority estimation table 211 according to the first embodiment may be periodically updated by, for example, a server that collects traffic information, or the like. In this case, the controller 200 may periodically access the server to acquire an updated priority estimation table 211, and overwrite the storage unit 210 with the updated priority estimation table 211.” Suzuki: paragraph 76)
Regarding claim 14, The information processing apparatus according to The information processing apparatus according to wherein the others include other traffic participants around the mobile body. (“Specifically, the pattern information may include information representing various shapes of, for example, bicycles, motorcycles, guardrails, humans, vehicles, buildings, and the like.” Suzuki: paragraph 48)
Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected as claim 1 stated above.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected as claim 1 stated above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose nor suggest a system for projecting an image onto a roadway that alters the projection to avoid an unsuitable region wherein the unsuitable region is one that is light-reflecting (claim 3) nor generating location changeability information indicating that the projection location is unchangeable (claim 9).
Conclusion
Related Art:
US 20260217184 A1 – vehicle indication projection onto roadway
US 20260124985 A1 – vehicle indication projection onto roadway
US 20240270155 A1 – vehicle indication projection onto roadway
US 20240270170 A1 – vehicle indication projection onto roadway
US 20190389368 A1 – vehicle indication projection onto roadway
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS R HUNNINGS whose telephone number is (571)272-3118. The examiner can normally be reached M: 6-7:30a, 9:30a-4:45p, 8:30-10p; T: 6-7:30a, 12-4p, 7:30p-12a; W: 6-7:30a, 9:30a-4:45p; H: 6-7:30a, 8:15a-4:45p; F: 12:00-4:45p.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/TRAVIS R HUNNINGS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights