CTFR 18/197,289 CTFR 74166 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan (2011/0224897) in view of Johnson (2020/0139812) and Gosalia (2021/0281532) . As in claims 1 and 14, Tan teaches an information processing apparatus (and medium comprising a program to execute a method) comprising a controller that controls display of an in-vehicle display, the in-vehicle display including a first display for a driver of the vehicle and a fellow passenger of the vehicle (Figs. 1 and 2) , wherein the controller is configured to: determine whether the vehicle is in operation (Fig. 3, elements 44 and 54, which teach determining whether the vehicle is less than or greater than 5 MPH) ; upon determination that the vehicle is not in operation, display unlocked functions on a predetermined display of the first display (Fig. 3, element 44, which teaches when the vehicle speed is less than 5 MPH (vehicle condition), display unlocked functions – see also pars. 20, 24. Pars. 22 and 29 further teach that the vehicle condition, such as less than 5 MPH which would provide access to the functions, could include “whether the vehicle is in motion” (stopped) and the transmission position (parked). Being stopped and/or parked would be considered not in operation . Pars 13 and 40 of the instant application’s specification equates the vehicle being stopped as being not in operation ) ; upon determination whether a fellow passenger is present in the vehicle, determine that the vehicle is in operation (Fig. 3, elements 42 and 54, which teach that a passenger is detected, and that the vehicle is in operation (this could either be that the vehicle speed is less than 5 MPH, but not stopped or parked (YES to element 54), or the speed is greater than 5 MPH (NO to element 54) ; upon determination that a fellow passenger is present in the vehicle, display unlocked functions on the first display (Fig. 3, elements 42, 54, 55 and 56) ; upon determination that a fellow passenger is not present in the vehicle, determine whether operation of the vehicle has been stopped (Fig. 3, elements 42 and 44. Pars. 22 and 29 further teach that the vehicle condition, such as less than 5 MPH which would provide access to the functions, could include “whether the vehicle is in motion” (stopped) and the transmission position (parked)) ; and upon determination that the operation of the vehicle has been stopped, display the unlocked functions on the first display (Fig. 3, elements 44 and 48 – see also pars. 20, 24). Although Tan teaches the order that “upon determining whether a passenger is present, determine that the vehicle is in operation,” instead of the opposite , it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention that the order is nonsequential and could easily be switched since the main focus of Tan’s system is to determine whether to display locked or unlocked functions based on those two criteria happening regardless. For example, regardless of the answer to element 42 of Fig. 3, the next determination is whether the vehicle is in operation. A person skilled in the art would have understood that one could rearrange the process described in Fig. 3, by first determining the vehicle operation and then determining whether a passenger is present, and still arrive at the same result as originally presented in Fig. 3. Although Tan does teach of a display that both the driver and passenger can see when the vehicle is not in operation (see above rationale about when the speed of the vehicle is less than 5 MPH), and further teaches that when a passenger is present and the vehicle is in operation (the speed is greater than 5 MPH), only the passenger should be interacting with the unlocked functions displayed (Fig. 3, elements 54, 59, 60, 62, 64, and 66, par 27), Tan does not teach of a first display for the driver and a second display for a passenger, where the displayed locked/unlocked functions are displayed on the first and second displays based on the conditions discussed by Tan above. Johnson teaches of a vehicle that includes a first display for a driver and a second display for a passenger (Fig. 1B, par. 3). Further, the displayed information can be modified on the first (driver) display such that when in a driver mode, the display type and/or interaction option is limited, whereas the displayed information on the second (passenger) display is not modified (standard mode) (Fig. 2, pars. 54-56). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to include a first display and a second display, as taught by Johnson, into the system taught by Tan above. This would have been obvious because both Tan and Johnson teach of vehicles that determine when a passenger is present in the vehicle, and what the passenger can see in a display versus what the driver can see. Further, both clearly teach that the driver should be limited from interacting with the display while driving, and by having the two displays – one for the driver and one for the passenger – that would further prevent the driver from being distracted since the passenger would have their own display. However, neither Tan or Johnson teach that what is displayed is a payment code . Gosalia teaches of a vehicle that displays a payment code (Par. 34 - “Vehicle identification application 120 may be utilized to view the results of the transaction and/or for viewing and storage of a transaction history, such as a receipt.” Par. 52 teaches that a user can be presented with a transaction history/a payment code). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have included displaying a payment code in the vehicles of Tan and Johnson above. This would have been obvious because Johnson already teaches that the application information displayed on the displays are to fulfill a particular purpose for a user, and provides a non-exhaustive list (par. 35), and by including a payment code option, as taught by Gosalia, would be beneficial to provide a driver/passenger a message to be able to make some type of payment, such as in a situation of paying to park, tolls, or the like (Gosalia - par. 22). As in claims 3 and 16, Tan, Johnson and Gosalia teach the information processing apparatus (medium) according to claims 1 and 14. Johnson further teaches wherein the in-vehicle display includes a plurality of second displays (Fig. 1B, par. 28 - display screens 124, 128, and 130 are corresponding to second displays for a fellow passengers) , and when a fellow passenger is present in the vehicle, the controller displays the payment code only on a specific second display among the plurality of second displays (Both Tan (Fig. 3) and Johnson (par. 30) teach of detecting a passenger. Further, both Tan (Par. 27) and Johnson (Pars. 53-55) teach of limiting the view of the driver so that the driver is not distracted. See the rationale in claim 1 above about only displaying information on a second display intended for the passenger, and the information being that of a payment code) . As in claims 4 and 17, Tan, Johnson and Gosalia teach the information processing apparatus (medium) according to claims 3 and 16. Johnson further teaches wherein the controller identifies a first seat on which a fellow passenger is seated in an interior of the vehicle, and selects a second display corresponding to the first seat as the specific second display among the plurality of second displays (Fig. 4, steps 3 and 5, pars. 30-31 - the vehicle cabin includes various sensor for capturing and detecting the presence, seating location, and activities of vehicle occupants. Thus, since the controller knows where each passenger is seated based on the detected output, it can identify a first seat in which a fellow passenger is seated and select a second display based on that determination) . As in claims 5, 9 and 18, Tan, Johnson and Gosalia teach the information processing apparatus (medium) according to claims 1, 4 and 14. Tan further teaches wherein the controller determines whether or not a fellow passenger is present in the vehicle based on a detection value of a seatbelt sensor installed in each seat of the vehicle (Par. 16) . As in claims 6, 10 and 19, Tan, Johnson and Gosalia teach the information processing apparatus (medium) according to claims 1, 4 and 14. Johnson (Par. 30) further teaches wherein the controller determines whether or not a fellow passenger is present in the vehicle based on a detection value of a weight sensor installed in each seat of the vehicle. As in claims 7, 11 and 20, Tan, Johnson and Gosalia teach the information processing apparatus (medium) according to claims 1, 4 and 14. Tan (Par. 16 – facial recognition) and Johnson (Par. 30) further teach wherein the controller determines whether or not a fellow passenger is present in the vehicle based on an interior image captured by a camera installed in an interior of the vehicle ([0030]: “cameras C which capture images or detect movements of vehicle occupants may be provided within the vehicle cabin” The camera can be used to detect the presence of the passenger and the seating location) . As in claims 8 and 12, Tan, Johnson and Gosalia teach the information processing apparatus according to claims 1 and 4. Johnson further teaches (Par. 44) wherein the controller determines whether or not a fellow passenger is present based on sound collected by a microphone installed in an interior of the vehicle. As in claim 13, Tan (Fig. 1), Johnson (Fig. 1B) and Gosalia (Fig. 2A) all teach of a vehicle equipped with an information processing apparatus according to claim 1 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-14 and 16-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 . 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 SCOTT T BADERMAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3644. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00AM-3:00PM, M-Th., every other Friday off. 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, John Cottingham, can be reached at 571-272-1400. 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. /SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/197,289 Page 2 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/197,289 Page 3 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/197,289 Page 4 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/197,289 Page 5 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/197,289 Page 6 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/197,289 Page 7 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/197,289 Page 8 Art Unit: 2118
Prosecution Insights