DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant Remarks received on June 30, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending with no claims canceled and claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, and 18 currently amended.
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 § 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.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mertens [WO2020030465A1] and Welles [US9646509B2].
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Mertens discloses:
A system comprising:
a display (Mertens, Figs 1-2, Screen element 20 and display device 18);
a media unit (Mertens, [0005], “…for media content for entertainment…”),
one or more processors (Mertens, [0029], “The control device can preferably have a processor device…”); and
logic encoded in one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media for execution by the one or more processors and when executed operable to cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
wherein the media unit is configured to provide visual feedback to a user (Mertens, [0013], “…a display content, for example a film, can be viewed on a very large screen area…”);
displaying, by the media unit, the visual feedback on the display,
wherein the display is stored in a frunk of the vehicle when the display is in a retracted position (Mertens, [0043], “The cargo space 36 may include a storage space 38, where the storage space 38 may be a part or portion of the cargo space 36, for example. The screen element 20 can be stored in this storage space 38 in the rest position.”),
wherein the display is positioned in front of a user when the display is in a protracted position (Mertens, Figs 1 and 2),
wherein the display is pivotally connected to the vehicle (Mertens, [0043], “…the screen element 20 can be fastened, preferably movably mounted…), and
wherein the display rotates to the protracted position when a front hood of the vehicle moves to an open position (Mertens, [0043], “The screen element 20 can be arranged, for example, via a hinge or one or more joints as exemplary folding elements 24 on a covering device 26, with the covering device 26 being configured, for example, as a trunk lid or as an engine hood.” See Figs 1-2 for visual representation with reference numbers from the cited passage above.);
rotating, panning, and tilting the display when the display is in the protracted position (Mertens, [0043], “The example in FIG. 1 shows an arrangement in which the screen element 20 can be fastened, preferably movably mounted, to a first side surface 28 on the side 32 of the covering device 26 facing the drivers cab 30.” In this citation of Mertens, while viewing Fig 1 in combination with the remainder of the citations, it is clear the display is rotated, panned, and tilted in such a way as to allow numerous types of scenery to be displayed through the windshield (e.g., to display visual content that represents standard scenery seen through a front windshield of the vehicle while actually driving the vehicle). See citations from Welles below regarding obviousness for the display to physically display such scenery.); and
Mertens discloses a system for displaying media content for viewing within a vehicle via a display interface stored within a frunk of the vehicle and a media unit, but Mertens does not explicitly disclose utilizing the display interface and media unit for viewing video games and utilizing the vehicle’s controls to interact within the video game.
Welles, however, discloses:
wherein the media unit is a video game device (Welles, col 1, lines 42-43, “There are many types of simulators known. The simplest simulator is a typical driving video game…” As discussed in the Response to Arguments section below, Welles discloses a simulator. In the cited portion, Welles establishes that video games and simulators may be equated in some contexts.);
monitoring, at the media unit, user interaction with vehicle controls of a vehicle (Welles, col 19, lines 9-14, “monitoring inputs from the trainee, the inputs controlling the operation of the training system, the inputs from at least a steering mechanism, a throttle mechanism, and a shifting mechanism, the steering device, the shifting device, and the throttle within the training system;”);
generating, by the media unit, a simulated driving experience based on the user interaction with the vehicle controls and based on simulated road conditions (Welles, col 5, lines 1-4, “The exemplary training system 10 has a windshield display 12 on which a simulated driving situation is presented as the trainee 8 would see through the windshield of the target vehicle.”);
scenery displayed on the display represents a scenery that is seen through a front windshield of the vehicle while actually driving the vehicle (Welles, See Figs 1-2 and 13-14 for a display that displays scenery that represents such a scenery (e.g., the road and surrounding scenery).); and
controlling virtual and physical motion of the vehicle based on a vehicle control input and the simulated road conditions (Welles, col 19, lines 9-14, “monitoring inputs from the trainee, the inputs controlling the operation of the training system, the inputs from at least a steering mechanism, a throttle mechanism, and a shifting mechanism, the steering device, the shifting device, and the throttle within the training system;” and Welles, col 10, lines 26-31, “The transmission top plate 103 also includes the transducer system 106. The transducer system 106 outputs noise and vibration to simulate gear box noise and vibration. This transmission noise and vibrations are conducted through parts of the transmission shaft 99 to provide the feel of an actual transmission in an operating target vehicle.”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Welles to Mertens would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Welles to the teachings of Mertens would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate video game controls and mechanics into similar systems and methods. Further, implementing the ability to play video games to Mertens with the ability to utilize the vehicle’s hardware as input, would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would decrease the traditional hassle of playing video games by no longer requiring users transport video game equipment (e.g., video game controller) and prepare said video game equipment when the user is ready to play.
Regarding claim 2 (Original), Mertens/Welles discloses the display is positioned outside a cab of the vehicle when the display is in the protracted position (Mertens, Figs 1-2 illustrate the display positioned outside the cab of the vehicle.).
Mertens/Welles, however, does not disclose:
The display is positioned inside a cab of the vehicle when the display is in the protracted position.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the display’s position from outside a cab of a vehicle to inside the cab of the vehicle because Applicant has not disclosed that disposing the display inside the cab of the vehicle provides a specific advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves an explicit problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant's invention to perform equally well with the rearrangement because the primary function of the display, whether positioned inside or outside the cab, is to provide visual feedback to the user, which is not obstructed by the rearrangement of the display. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the display’s position relative to the cab of the vehicle to obtain the invention as claimed. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 3 (Original), Mertens/Welles discloses:
The display is positioned outside a cab of the vehicle when the display is in the protracted position (Mertens, [0004], “A screen element of the display device is arranged outside the driver’s cab.”).
Regarding claim 4 (Currently Amended), Mertens/Welles discloses:
The display expands when the display is in the protracted position such that a width of the display is greater than the front windshield of the vehicle (Mertens, [0024], “The same advantage results (and is increased in an optional combination with the embodiment with regard to the width of the screen element) if the side surface of the screen element that has the display surface extends in a direction that essentially runs along a vertical axis of the motor vehicle in the usage position (i.e., a height of the screen element), has a length of at least 50 percent of a height of the window pane, preferably at least 70 percent, at least 80 percent or at least 90 percent, or 100 percent.”).
Regarding claim 5 (Original), Mertens/Welles discloses:
The display expands when the display is in the protracted position such that a height of the display is adjustable (Mertens, [0033], “The generated control signal can activate a motor, for example, which can adjust or move…the screen element from one position to the other position.”).
Regarding claim 6 (Original), Mertens/Welles discloses:
The display is attached to a front hood of the vehicle when the display is in the retracted position and in the protracted position (Mertens, [0043], “The screen element 20 can be arranged, for example, via a hinge or one or more joints as exemplary folding elements 24 on a covering device 26, with the covering device 26 being configured, for example, as a trunk lid or as an engine hood.”).
Regarding claim 7 (Original), Mertens/Welles discloses:
The display is configurable to rotate when the display is in the protracted position (Mertens, [0020], “There are several ways to adjust the screen element from the rest position to the use position and vice versa.”).
Regarding claims 8-20, the claims recite similar limitations to claims 1-7 above despite different dependencies, see rejection citations of claims 1-7 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8 of 9, paras 1-3, of the Remarks, filed June 30, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed June 30, 2026 with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the cited references do not teach specific limitations claimed by the instant application (Remarks, pages 8 and 9 of 9, paras 4-6 and 1-2, respectively), the Examiner respectfully submits the citations provided in the corresponding section above. Said citations, either by themselves or in combination with the remainder of the reference or references, teach the limitations claimed within the instant application.
To facilitate the Applicant’s review, the Examiner has preserved the underlining format of the amendments in claims 1 and 4, while newly underlining all Examiner-provided citations and notes that differ from the previous office action dated April 2, 2026. Newly underlined Examiner-provided citations and notes only appear in the corresponding section for claim 1 above. All other underlined content were previously presented in the previous office action dated April 2, 2026.
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 ZACHARY JOSEPH POLLOCK whose telephone number is (703)756-5952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00am-8:00pm ET.
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, XUAN THAI can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/Z.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights