DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the RCE filed February 13, 2026 and the amendment filed on January 20, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending, of which claims 1, 8, and 15 have been 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 20, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The phrase “represents what the user would see while actually driving the vehicle” in claims 1, 8, and 15 is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “represents what the user would see while actually driving the vehicle” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Specifically, the required degree at which scenery displayed on the display must replicate what a user may see while actively driving the vehicle is unclear and ambiguous. For example, it is unclear whether this limitation is directed toward the media presented on the display and indicating the media must be what is typically observed by a user actively driving (e.g., interstate highways, city skylines, and roadside trees) or whether this limitation is directed toward the degree at which the display covers the windshield and indicating the user cannot see any portion of their surrounding reality from the windshield when the display is in the protracted position due to the extensive size and maneuverability of the display relative to the windshield.
For the purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes the Applicant is intending to recite the latter example; therefore, to meet the limitation, prior art must be capable of maneuverability and covering the full windshield.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected by virtue of its/their dependencies on claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively.
The phrase “controlling motion of the vehicle” in claims 1, 8, and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “controlling motion of the vehicle” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, it is unclear whether the Applicant intended to refer to virtual motion of the vehicle or physical, non-virtual motion of the vehicle.
For the purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes the Applicant intended to refer to controlling the virtual motion of the vehicle, such as during gameplay within a vehicle racing game.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected by virtue of its/their dependencies on claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively.
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 such that scenery displayed on the display represents what the user would see while actually driving the vehicle (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.”); 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.”); and
controlling 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;”).
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 (Original), Mertens/Welles discloses:
The display expands when the display is in the protracted position such that a width of the display is greater than a 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 (Original), 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 filed January 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that various features of the amended claims are not taught by the prior art (Remarks, pages 9-10 of 10), the Examiner respectfully submits the corresponding sections above for further details.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that, “the Background of Welles teaches away from video game simulators, stating that such “simulators are more of a game than an actual driver training system.”” (Remarks, page 10 of 10), the Examiner respectfully submits the Applicant’s reliance on the quoted portion of Welles is misplaced because the passage cited actually is referring to a subjective interpretation of the difference between simulators and video games. This is further evidence by earlier in the same paragraph of Welles where Welles recites, “There are many types of simulators known. The simplest is a typical driving video game…” (Welles, Background, para 2). Through this recitation, Welles is disclosing that simulators and video games can be considered synonymous.
Conclusion
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