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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection, applicant argues that oil degradation is given as an example of an irregularly occurring event, and that one skilled in the art would recognize this as being an irregular event detected by, for example, a sensor. Examiner notes this is a possible way to detect oil degradation, but it is not mentioned in the specification. One skilled in the art would also recognize that oil degradation is predictable enough that automotive user manuals describe specific mileage or time intervals in which oil should be changed. The ambiguity of the oil degradation example in the specification, combined with the fact that the term “irregular” is not strictly defined by applicant’s disclosure results in one skilled in the art not being able to determine the metes and bounds of a claim with such a term.
As to the 35 USC 103 rejection, applicant argues that Mizuguchi discloses reducing a warning screen and drawing it into an icon, which is an animation effect that cannot be interpreted as a user operating a switch or switching one time in sequence through screen displays. Examiner notes that the Ueda reference has been applied to teach this newly amended limitation. In addition, such switching is also taught by Civiero at fig. 6 and section 0038.
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, 6-10, 13, and 16 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 term “irregularly occurring” in claims 1, 10, and 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “irregularly occurring” 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. It is unclear from the disclosure where the boundary between an “irregularly occurring” and a “regularly occurring” event would lie. The only example given in applicant’s specification is an oil change warning being irregularly occurring, but even this is unclear since in most cases oil change recommendations would follow a regularly occurring pattern (e.g. every 5-10k miles or every 6-12 months). With no clear guidance on what differentiates a regular vs. irregular occurrence, one skilled in the art would not be able to interpret where the bounds of the claims lie.
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 (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 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.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 8-10, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuguchi (U.S. Publication 2016/0266767) in view of Ueda (U.S. Publication 2017/0045009), Civiero (U.S. Publication 2016/0291806), Wagner (U.S. Publication 2022/0363131), and Abersfelder (GB 2283149 A).
As to claim 1, as best understood, Mizuguchi discloses a vehicle display control device, comprising:
a memory (fig. 4; the drawing buffer reads on a memory);
and a processor coupled to the memory (fig. 4; p. 2-3, section 0035; a GPU and CPU are utilized to draw an information display to the buffer), the processor being configured to:
switch between a plurality of screen displays containing information relating to a variety of functions (fig. 1; switching is performed between displays relating to brake, charging, and oil functions);
display one of the plurality of screen displays at a display region of a display (fig. 1; fig. 2; p. 2, section 0033; the screen displays are alternately shown on a physical display of an information display device);
and between an on state and an off state of a specific function, change a number of the plurality of screen displays being switched between (fig. 4; p. 3, sections 0038-0045; the device constantly repeats the reception/warning checking/information selection steps; thus, if a particular warning function is turned to an on state, a number of switched screens would increase; if a particular warning function is turned to an off state, the number of switched screens would decrease),
wherein the processor is configured to, in response to the specific screen display being displayed at the display region during display of a message tab screen at the display region, the message tab screen being a warning screen display relating to an irregularly occurring event, set a blank screen as the first screen display, the blank screen being adjacent to the message tab screen (fig. 5; p. 4, section 0055; the brake abnormality screen reads on a message tab as it is connected to the tab on the lower portion of the screen; a brake abnormality would be unpredictable and not in a regular maintenance pattern and so one would read on an as best understood definition of “irregularly occurring”; in response to when a new warning screen is to be displayed at the display region, the brake abnormality screen is transitioned to a blank screen as shown in fig. 5; the blank screen is shown adjacent to the message tab screen in sequence and before the new warning screen that would read on the specific screen display).
Mizuguchi does not disclose, but Ueda discloses that switching is in response to a user operating a switch, and is one time in sequence through the plurality of screen displays (fig. 12; p. 10, section 0210-0212; a user manually operates a display with information relating to various functions, switching between displays with a switching operation member, and moving one time in a sequential manner through a sequence with each switch), and in response to the specific function turning on, the processor is configured to insert a specific screen display into the plurality of screen displays that are arranged in an order in which the plurality of screen displays are switched, so as to add one to the number of the plurality of screen displays being switched, the specific screen display displaying information relating to the specific function (fig. 12; p. 10, section 0210-0212; when the PTO function is turned on, the one PTO display is added to the order of the rotation of switched displays), and in response to the specific function turning off, the processor is configured to remove the specific screen display into the plurality of screen displays so as to remove one from the number of the plurality of screen displays being switched (p. 8, section 0175-0178; when the PTO function is turned off, the PTO function display is canceled, removing the one display from the switching rotation, and the display reverts back to the previous screen in the switching rotation), wherein the specific function is a driving assistance function that assists a driving operation (p. 1, sections 0007-0013; the PTO function assists the driver/operator by transmitting rotary power from the engine to a working device). The motivation for this is to allow the driver/operator to have more specific knowledge of the PTO system instead of using trial and error. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mizuguchi to have switching be in response to a user operating a switch, and switch one time in sequence through the plurality of screen displays, as well as, in response to the specific function turning on, insert a specific screen display into the plurality of screen displays that are arranged in an order in which the plurality of screen displays are switched so as to add one to the number of the plurality of screen displays being switched, and in response to the specific function turning off, remove the specific screen display into the plurality of screen displays so as to remove one from the number of the plurality of screen displays being switched, wherein the specific function is a driving assistance function that assists a driving operation in order to allow the driver/operator to have more specific knowledge of the PTO system instead of using trial and error as taught by Ueda.
Mizuguchi does not disclose, but Civiero discloses, as part of the inserting a specific screen display, determining whether a display displaying information relating to the specific function is present among the plurality of screen displays being switched and when determined that the display displaying information relating to the specific function is not present among the plurality of screen displays being switched, inserting a specific screen display (figs. 3p-3r; fig. 4; p. 1, section 0004; p. 5-6, section 0067; when a screen relating to a function such as trip data, transmission status, etc. is to be added to the cycle of screens, it is first checked if the screen relating to the function has already been added; if it has not already been added, and so is not present in the cycle of displays, the screen is added). The motivation for this is to allow user customization but also restrict a sequence to a small subset of information screens (p. 1, section 0025). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mizuguchi and Ueda to, as part of the inserting a specific screen display, determine whether a display displaying information relating to the specific function is present among the plurality of screen displays being switched and when determined that the display displaying information relating to the specific function is not present among the plurality of screen displays being switched, insert a specific screen display in order to allow user customization but also restrict a sequence to a small subset of information screens as taught by Civiero.
Mizuguchi does not disclose, but Wagner discloses wherein the processor is configured to change a position, within the order in which the plurality of screen displays are switched, at which the specific screen display is inserted from an initial position within the order to a final position within the order in accordance with display details of the plurality of screen displays displayed at the display region (p. 4, section 0049-p. 5, section 0053; an order in a sequence and/or duration of screen display during that sequence is changed based on relevance of the details in the screen). The motivation for this is to account for a user only having a limited amount of attention to devote to a screen while driving (p. 1, section 0005). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mizuguchi, Ueda, and Civiero to change a position, within the order in which the plurality of screen displays are switched, at which the specific screen display is inserted from an initial position within the order to a final position within the order in accordance with display details of the plurality of screen displays displayed at the display region in order to account for a user only having a limited amount of attention to devote to a screen while driving as taught by Wagner.
Mizuguchi does not disclose, but Abersfelder discloses wherein the processor is configured to, in response to the specific screen display being displayed at the display region, insert the specific screen display between a first screen display that is currently displayed at the display region and a second screen display that is adjacent to, either before or after, the first screen display (p. 13, claim 5; a new screen display image is immediately inserted and displayed in a cyclic sequence; the insertion is inherently after a first current display and before whatever second display would have come after the first display). The motivation for this is to alert a user to more critical obstacles. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mizuguchi, Ueda, Civiero, and Wagner to in response to the specific screen display being displayed at the display region, insert the specific screen display between a first screen display that is currently displayed at the display region and a second screen display that is adjacent to, either before or after, the first screen display in order to alert a user to more critical obstacles as taught by Abersfelder.
As to claim 6, Mizuguchi discloses wherein the processor is configured to switch between and display the plurality of screen displays at the display region continuously (fig. 1; fig. 4; p. 2, section 0027; the warning screen displays are continuously displayed and switched every fixed time period as along as the condition that caused the warning continues to exist).
As to claim 8, Mizuguchi discloses a vehicle display device, comprising: the vehicle display control device according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1); and a display including a display region (fig. 3; p. 1, section 0002; p. 2, section 0026; the display device is part of a vehicle and includes both display and control device for the display).
As to claim 9, see the rejection to claim 8.
As to claim 10, see the rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 13, see the rejection to claim 1. Further, Mizuguchi discloses a computer executing the functions (p. 2-3, section 0035; a GPU/CPU combination is used to execute instructions). Mizuguchi does not expressly disclose a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program executable by a computer. However, Official Notice (see MPEP 2144.03) is taken that such a medium storing a program is extremely well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mizuguchi and Ueda to use a non-transitory computer readable medium in order to store instructions to be executed by the CPU in a less temporary manner as compared to a transitory signal, as would be known in the art.
As to claim 16, Mizuguchi does not disclose, but Ueda discloses wherein the specific screen display is inserted at a location between a first display that is currently displayed in the display region and an adjacent second screen display preceding the first screen display in a switching sequence (fig. 12; p. 10, sections 0211-0212; a display is added between a current display of operating time or max speed and an adjacent display of max speed or operating time, respectively; when a user actuates the switch, the display can go from operating time to the inserted display; it is noted that this is also the manner in which a “preceding” display is described in applicant’s specification- “preceding” is described as “would be displayed when the down switch 30B is operated once” in p. 9, section 0042). Motivation for the combination is given in the rejection to claim 1.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuguchi, Ueda, Civiero, Wagner, and Abersfelder in view of Sugiyama (JP 2011118762 A).
As to claim 7, Mizuguchi does not disclose but Sugiyama does disclose wherein the specific function is an adaptive cruise control function (p. 2; p. 3; p. 6-7; cruise control is part of the switchable display, which can include modification of the switch order by skipping or re-inserting display screens). The motivation for this is that by including the ACC function as well as many other functions in a switching display, the number of operation units can be prevented from increasing, increasing mounting space, and having the effect of cost suppression (p. 4). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mizuguchi, Ueda, Civiero, Abersfelder and Wagner to include an adaptive cruise control function in order to prevent a number of operation units from increasing, increasing mounting space, and having the effect of cost suppression as taught by Sugiyama.
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 AARON M RICHER whose telephone number is (571)272-7790. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, King Poon can be reached at (571)272-7440. 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.
/AARON M RICHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2617