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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed on 11/4/2025. Claim 15 has been newly added. No other claims have been amended, added, or canceled. Accordingly, claims 1- 15 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In substance applicant’s representative argues, in substance, that neither Matsumura nor Johnson disclose and/or teach: A- Matsumura does not teach the same button remains present and functional for both users simultaneously; B- Johnson does not teach shared button interfaces with direction-dependent behavior; and C- that there is no teaching, motivation, or reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the claim invention absent hindsight.
In response to A and B the examiner respectfully disagrees. Initially the examiner would like to point out that, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the same button remains present and functional for both users simultaneously and same button remains present and functional for both users simultaneously) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, regarding A & B, applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As was specifically stated in the non-final office action mailed 8/8/2025, Johnson was used to disclose “discloses a processor configured to execute the program, wherein the processor is configured to control the vehicle display to simultaneously display a same button with different selectable vehicle functions associated with the same button when an input is made to the same button based on information on a driver's hand approaches from a driver seat side and information on a fellow passenger's hand approaches from a passenger seat side”. Johnson, still teaches the features for which it was cited; and Matsumura was cited for teaching the remaining features of the instantly contested claim(s).
Additionally, assuming arguendo, we accept applicant’s representative and assume there is support for the argued features the examiner still contends that the combination of Matsumura and Johnson still read on the instantly contested limitations. Matsumura discloses approach sensors detecting the approach of an operation object (i.e., user’s finger/hand) from either the driver’s side or the passenger’s side, and as such discloses displaying in the display portion (i.e., button) different selectable vehicle functions (i.e., GPS, MAP etc.) (see at least fig. 4-5 and ¶52-56); Johnson was utilized to disclose how the display is adjusted based upon the determination of whether a driver and/or a passenger is operating/approaching the display (see fig. 3-4). As such the examiner contends that the combination of Matsumura and Johnson read on the instantly contested limitations.
In response to C, the examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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.
Claims 1- 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura (US2004/0140959 A1) and further in view of Johnson (US2020/0139812 A1).
As per claim 1, Matsumura discloses: an apparatus for controlling a vehicle display based on approach direction determination using a proximity sensor, the apparatus comprising:
an input unit configured to receive information on an approach direction in which an occupant's hand in a vehicle moves to operate a vehicle function (see Matsumura at least fig. 4 and Abstract, display system with approach sensors 8 and 9 detecting whether input is from driver or passenger);
a memory configured to store a program for controlling the vehicle display by using the information on the approach direction (see Matsumura at least fig. 4 & 5 and Abstract, display system with control device).
Matsumura discloses the invention as detailed above.
However, Matsumura does not appear to explicitly disclose a processor configured to execute the program, wherein the processor is configured to control the vehicle display to simultaneously display a same button with different selectable vehicle functions associated with the same button when an input is made to the same button based on information on a driver's hand approaches from a driver seat side and information on a fellow passenger's hand approaches from a passenger seat side.
Nevertheless, Johnson—who is in the same field of endeavor--discloses a processor configured to execute the program, wherein the processor is configured to control the vehicle display to simultaneously display a same button with different selectable vehicle functions associated with the same button when an input is made to the same button based on information on a driver's hand approaches from a driver seat side and information on a fellow passenger's hand approaches from a passenger seat side (see Johnson at least fig. 2-4, passenger screen portion and driver screen portion both respectively displaying information for same button [138] tailored for driver and/or passenger).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the given invention, would have been motivated to combine Johnson’s display system with Matsumura’s in order to form a safer and more improved user experience (i.e., by tailoring the display content to the needs of the driver and/or passenger respectively).
Motivation to combine Matsumura and Johnson not only comes from knowledge well known in the art but also from Johnson (see at least ¶1-2).
Both Matsumura and Johnson disclose claim 2: wherein the processor is configured to display an operation guide, which is related to a function operable by a hard button, through the vehicle display based on the information on the approach direction made by determining whether a hand approaching the hard button is the driver's hand or the fellow passenger's hand (see Matsumura at least fig. 4 & 5 and Abstract & ¶67-76 and see Johnson at least fig. 2-4 and ¶32-68).
Motivation to combine Matsumura and Johnson, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Matsumura and Johnson disclose claim 3: wherein the processor is configured to determine a menu, which is activated among menu buttons displayed in a preset region of the vehicle display by using the information on the approach direction, and to provide an operation guide related to the menu (see Matsumura at least fig. 4 & 5 and Abstract & ¶67-76 and see Johnson at least fig. 2-4 and ¶32-68).
Motivation to combine Matsumura and Johnson, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Matsumura and Johnson disclose claim 4: wherein the processor is configured to recognize a connection state of the driver's smartphone and the fellow passenger's smartphone, and when a function related to cooperation of smartphones is selected, the processor is configured to control contents playing on the driver's smartphone or the fellow passenger's smartphone to be displayed through the vehicle display by using the information on the approach direction (see Matsumura at least fig. 4 & 5 and Abstract & ¶67-76 and see Johnson at least fig. 2-4 and ¶32-68).
Motivation to combine Matsumura and Johnson, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Matsumura and Johnson disclose claim 5: wherein, when a smartphone, which operates in conjunction with the vehicle, is the driver's smartphone and the fellow passenger's hand intends to approach to perform a function of the smartphone that operates in conjunction with the vehicle, the processor is configured to control the corresponding function not to operate (see Matsumura at least fig. 4 & 5 and Abstract & ¶67-76 and see Johnson at least fig. 2-4 and ¶32-68).
Motivation to combine Matsumura and Johnson, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Matsumura and Johnson disclose claim 6: wherein when the fellow passenger's hand approaches, the processor is configured to control the vehicle display to separately display a menu that does not operate even when the menu is selected by the fellow passenger's hand (see Matsumura at least fig. 4 & 5 and Abstract & ¶67-76 and see Johnson at least fig. 2-4 and ¶32-68).
Motivation to combine Matsumura and Johnson, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Matsumura and Johnson disclose claim 7: wherein when a point of interest (POI) is clicked during a navigation guide, the processor is configured to control the vehicle display to move the POI, display information on the POI based on the information on the first approach direction, and display the information on the POI in a screen region configured to be separately split from a route guide screen based on the information on the second approach direction (see Matsumura at least fig. 4 & 5 and Abstract & ¶67-76 and see Johnson at least fig. 2-4 and ¶32-68).
Motivation to combine Matsumura and Johnson, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Matsumura and Johnson disclose claim 8: A method of controlling a vehicle display based on approach direction determination using a proximity sensor, the method comprising: checking an approach direction in which an occupant's hand in a vehicle moves to operate a vehicle function; and controlling the vehicle display to simultaneously display a same button with different selectable vehicle functions associated with the same button when an input is made to the same button based on information on a first approach direction in which a driver's hand approaches from a driver seat side and information on a second approach direction in which a fellow passenger's hand approaches from a passenger seat side (see Matsumura at least fig. 4 & 5 and Abstract & ¶67-76 and see Johnson at least fig. 2-4 and ¶32-68).
Motivation to combine Matsumura and Johnson, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Matsumura and Johnson disclose claim 9: further comprising checking the approach direction on whether a hand approaching a hard button is the driver's hand or the fellow passenger's hand, and displaying an operation guide, which is related to a function operable by the hard button, through the vehicle display based on the approach direction (see Matsumura at least fig. 4 & 5 and Abstract & ¶67-76 and see Johnson at least fig. 2-4 and ¶32-68).
Motivation to combine Matsumura and Johnson, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Matsumura and Johnson disclose claim 10: further comprising determining a menu, which is activated among menu buttons displayed in a preset region of the vehicle display based on the approach direction, and providing an operation guide related to the menu (see Matsumura at least fig. 4 & 5 and Abstract & ¶67-76 and see Johnson at least fig. 2-4 and ¶32-68).
Motivation to combine Matsumura and Johnson, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Matsumura and Johnson disclose claim 11: further comprising recognizing a connection state of the driver's smartphone and the fellow passenger's smartphone, and when a function related to cooperation of smartphones is selected, and controlling contents playing on the driver's smartphone or the fellow passenger's smartphone to be displayed through the vehicle display based on the approach direction (see Matsumura at least fig. 4 & 5 and Abstract & ¶67-76 and see Johnson at least fig. 2-4 and ¶32-68).
Motivation to combine Matsumura and Johnson, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Matsumura and Johnson disclose claim 12: wherein, when a smartphone, which operates in conjunction with the vehicle, is the driver's smartphone and the fellow passenger's hand intends to approach to perform a function of the smartphone that operates in conjunction with the vehicle, controlling the vehicle display includes controlling the corresponding function not to operate (see Matsumura at least fig. 4 & 5 and Abstract & ¶67-76 and see Johnson at least fig. 2-4 and ¶32-68).
Motivation to combine Matsumura and Johnson, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Matsumura and Johnson disclose claim 13: wherein, when the fellow passenger's hand approaches, the vehicle display is controlled to separately display a menu that does not operate even when the menu is selected by the fellow passenger's hand (see Matsumura at least fig. 4 & 5 and Abstract & ¶67-76 and see Johnson at least fig. 2-4 and ¶32-68).
Motivation to combine Matsumura and Johnson, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Matsumura and Johnson disclose claim 14: wherein, when a point of interest (POI) is clicked during a navigation guide, the vehicle display is controlled to move the POI, displaying information on the POI based on the information on the first approach direction, and displaying the information on the POI in a screen region configured to be separately split from a route guide screen based on the information on the second approach direction (see Matsumura at least fig. 4 & 5 and Abstract & ¶67-76 and see Johnson at least fig. 2-4 and ¶32-68).
Motivation to combine Matsumura and Johnson, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Matsumura and Johnson disclose claim 15: An apparatus for controlling a vehicle display based on approach direction determination using a proximity sensor, the apparatus comprising: an input unit configured to receive information on an approach direction in which an occupant's hand in a vehicle moves to operate a vehicle function; a memory configured to store a program for controlling the vehicle display by using the information on the approach direction; and a processor configured to execute the program, wherein the processor is configured to control the vehicle display to simultaneously display a same graphical button at a fixed location on the display, the graphical button being associated with multiple selectable vehicle functions, and wherein the processor is further configured to execute one of the multiple vehicle functions based on whether the button input is made from a first approach direction corresponding to a driver seat side or a second approach direction corresponding to a passenger seat side (see Matsumura at least fig. 4 & 5 and Abstract & ¶67-76 and see Johnson at least fig. 2-4 and ¶32-68; see claim 1 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MACEEH ANWARI whose telephone number is 571-272-7591. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00 PM ES.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MACEEH ANWARI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights