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 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claims 13 and 19, Applicant argues (Remarks pages 5-6) that Tertoolen and Camhi fail to teach the amended limitations, particularly that the selected element is displayed both larger than an adjacent, non-selected list or an adjacent, non-selected element displayed on the at least one display, and displayed as graphically highlighted by at least one of an aura brightening or darkening or a change of a color palette. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As shown in the updated rejection below, Camhi discloses that elements increase in size and visibility toward a center (selected) position and that selected content is displayed more prominently and with larger dimensions than other content (“Camhi”, [0045]-[0046]). Thus, the limitation of displaying a selected element larger that adjacent element is taught by the prior art.
With respect to graphical highlighting, Applicant does not address that Camhi teaches variations in pixel value and visibility. As noted below, such variations would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to interpret that brightness or luminance changes, which fall within the scope of the claimed graphical highlighting under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
For the reasons set forth above, the combination of Tertoolen and Camhi teaches all of the limitations of claims 13 and 19. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 13 and 19 is maintained.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 13-14, 17, and 19, 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tertoolen et al. (US Pub. 2018/0273050 A1, hereinafter “Tertoolen”) in view of Camhi et al. (US Pub. 2020/0218404 A1, hereinafter “Camhi”).
Claim 13: Tertoolen teaches A method for providing contents on various display areas of at least one display (“Tertoolen”, Fig. 4, [0081]; Figs. 11&12, [0127]-[0129], provide contents via head up display (HUD) 30 and digital cluster display (DCD) 20), the method comprising the steps of:
acquiring a first selection of one of the display areas (“Tertoolen”, Figs. 11&12; [0128], [0129], select HUD 30 is the priority display);
acquiring a second selection of an element of a list, which is assigned to the selected display area (“Tertoolen”, Figs. 6-8, [0131]-[0132], navigate a menu displayed in the HUD 30);
providing content, which is assigned to the selected element, on the selected display area, wherein the selected display area comprises a head-up display (“Tertoolen”, Figs. 6-8, [0132]; Fig. 25-26, [0173]);
providing an overview of the selected list on a display area of the head-up display of the at least one display, wherein the overview comprises a representation of the selected element and at least one adjacent element of the selected list; wherein the selected element of the list is displayed larger than an adjacent, non-selected list or an adjacent, non-selected element displayed on the at least one display (“Tertoolen”, Figs. 6-8, [0132]; Fig. 25-26, [0173]).
However, Tertoolen does not teach the following feature, taught by Camhi who teaches wherein the selected element of the list is displayed larger than an adjacent, non-selected list or an adjacent, non-selected element displayed on the at least one display (“Camhi”, Fig. 4, [0045]-[0047], the display windows are configured such that elements increase in size and visibility as they transition toward a center window. The center window corresponds to a selected or focused element, while offset windows correspond to adjacent, non-selected elements); and
wherein the selected element of the list is displayed as graphically highlighted by at least one of an aura brightening or darkening or a change of a color palette (“Camhi”, Fig. 4, [0045]-[0047], elements may be assigned different pixel values and exhibit increased visibility as they transition toward the center window, variations in pixel value and visibility correspond to changes in brightness, luminance or visual emphasis).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the teachings of Tertoolen and Camhi before them before the effective filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of providing contents on various display areas, as taught by Tertoolen, with the selected element of the list is displayed with visual emphasis of Camhi. One would have been motivated to make this combination in order to provide an improved vehicle interface that enhances user recognition of selected elements and facilitates interaction with display content as suggested by Camhi [0045]-[0047].
Claim 14: Tertoolen and Camhi teach the method according to claim 13, wherein the list is cyclic (“Tertoolen”, Figs. 25-26, [0173]).
Claim 17: Tertoolen and Camhi teach the method according to claim 13, wherein the representation of an element comprises a miniature of the content assigned to the selected element (“Tertoolen”, Figs. 25-26, [0173]).
Claim 19: Claim 19 is directed to a control device for implementing the method steps of claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 21: Tertoolen and Camhi teach the control device according to claim 19, wherein the input device comprises a four-way element and two ways are assigned to each of the first and second selections (“Tertoolen”, Fig. 2, [0083]-[0085], steering wheel 10 having steering controls 12).
Claim 22: Tertoolen and Camhi teach the control device according to claim 21, wherein the input device is attached to a steering wheel of a vehicle (“Tertoolen”, Fig. 2, [0083]-[0085], steering wheel 10 having steering controls 12).
Claim 23: Tertoolen and Camhi teach the A system, comprising: a control device according to claim 19; and at least one display, wherein multiple display areas are provided on the at least one display display (“Tertoolen”, Fig. 4, [0081]; Figs. 11&12, [0127]-[0129], provide contents via head up display (HUD) 30 and digital cluster display (DCD) 20).
Claim 24: Tertoolen and Camhi teach a vehicle comprising a control device according to claim 19 (“Tertoolen”, Figs. 4, [0081]-[0082], controller 60).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2019/0209100 A1 (Strahinja et al.) — discloses driver control environments providing display areas interface.
US 9,186,994 (Okuyama et al.) — discloses vehicle input apparatus.
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.
Examiner has cited particular columns and line and/or paragraph numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1300. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-4:00 PM.
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, William Bashore can be reached at 571-272-4088. 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.
/PHUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights