Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 11-15 each recites a “computer readable storage medium”. There is no clear definition for a computer readable storage medium in the Specification, and no disavowal statement, and therefore the broadest reasonable interpretation of “computer readable storage medium” could include a signal, rather than claiming a physical medium storing the data or a machine that uses the data in an inventive physical system. Therefore, claims 11-15 are not directed toward patent-eligible subject matter.
Double Patenting Analysis
4. This application is a continuation of application 17/191576 filed 3/3/21, now US Patent 11,692,840, which is a continuation of application 15/971458, filed 5/4/18, now US Patent 11,002,558, which is a continuation of application 14/291970, filed 5/30/14, now US Patent 9,965,035.
Of these parent applications, US Patent 11,002,558 (from application 15/971458) has claims which come closest to those of the present application. For example, independent claims 1, 13, and 14 of ‘558 each recites a portable electronic device which generates user interfaces to be displayed on separate displays within a vehicle. ‘558 also recites in the independent claims and throughout the dependent claims that the user interfaces may be updated from different input sources and reflect various states and associations of the displays. However, the independent claims 1, 11, and 16 of the present invention explicitly show that the portable electronic device displays its own user interface associated with a first application in addition to generating and sharing user interfaces to separate displays in a vehicle. The ‘558 claims are completely absent the feature of displaying any user interface on the portable electronic device itself and only recite a two display system, whereas the present invention is a three display system. This is significant because independent claims 1, 11, and 16 of the present invention make explicitly clear that the second user interface displayed on one of the two vehicle displays includes at least some different information than information displayed in the first user interface (which is displayed on the portable electronic device), as well as that the third user interface displayed on the other separate vehicle display is concurrently displayed with but nevertheless different from the second user interface. Thus the present claims distinguish over a two display system that merely receives the user interfaces from a remote portable source, and instead recite a three display system in which at least two of the displays including that of the portable electronic device include some shared information from an associated application yet all three still have independent content. Therefore, a double patenting rejection would not be warranted at this time.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bull et al “Bull” (AU 2013200021 A1) and Ricci et al “Ricci” (US 2013/0204493 A1).
(Please see the attached copy of Bull that numbers paragraphs in the same manner as that used in this Action).
7. Regarding claim 1, Bull shows a method for displaying user interfaces, performed by a portable electronic device that includes a portable-device display and is in communication with at least two vehicle displays of a vehicle (para 1-2, 25, 31 show a portable electronic device with a display and communicating with accessory display devices, and para 25 show the display devices may be in a vehicle) comprising: at the portable electronic device, while the portable electronic device is displaying a first user interface associated with a first application (para 10 and 15 show the portable electronic device itself is displaying a native first user interface, and para 10, 16, 20 show the interface may be a GUI [graphical user interface] associated with a media player application), sending from the portable electronic device to a first vehicle display of the at least two vehicle displays, information for generating a second user interface associated with the first application that includes at least some different information than information displayed in the first user interface (para 6, 7, 10, 22 show sending from the portable electronic device information to generate a new GUI in the accessory display device, and para 16, 20 show the GUI may be associated with the media player application. Para 22 shows the new GUI displayed on the accessory display device may be modified from the first user interface displayed on the portable electronic device); sending, from the portable electronic device to a second vehicle display of the at least two vehicle displays, information for generating a third user interface associated with the first application or a second application executed by the portable electronic device (para 19-20, 38 show the portable electronic device being a media player and sending information for yet a different [thus third] user interface to another display device separate from the first accessory display device. Note the alternative claim recitation and that this third interface may be associated with either the first or second application – para 20 show this may be at least the first media player application). Bull shows the first vehicle display and second vehicle display are distinct display devices with different interfaces (para 38 shows the multi-screen display with different content interfaces from the portable electronic media device on each display screen, such as a video player interface on one display screen and a control information interface on another), but nevertheless it may be interpreted that Bull is not explicitly displaying the third user interface concurrently with the second user interface. Ricci however shows a vehicle multi-display system in a vehicle in which a third user interface is concurrently displayed with a separate second user interface (para 29, 343, 346, Figure 22A show the multi-display system in which several separate display devices are in a vehicle, and para 29, 347-348 show them concurrently displaying personalized distinct content from a separate source; note para 347 shows the separate source has its own display with concurrently displayed interface that is used to select content). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display the third user interface concurrently with the second user interface in Bull, as is done in Ricci, because it would provide an efficient way to utilize all the display devices to present different content.
8. Regarding claim 2, Bull shows the third user interface includes at least some different information than information displayed in the first user interface and in the second user interface (Bull para 38 shows how each of the second and third accessory user interfaces may have different content such as video in one and control information in the other. Each of these accessory user interface information comes from the portable electronic device and para 22 shows that information displayed in the first user interface of the portable electronic device may be displayed as modified in any of the accessories. Thus, the information in the third user interface may include at least some different information from information displayed in the first and second user interfaces).
9. Regarding claim 3, the first application is a navigation application (Bull para 54, 76, 80 show the application displayed on the portable electronic device interface may be a navigation application).
10. Regarding claim 4, the second application is a media player application (Bull para 20, 38 shows the second accessory display interface in the vehicle [thus corresponding to the third user interface] may play video content while the first accessory display device may have other content). Para 20 shows the other content on the first accessory display interface may be from a navigational application, and this is also shown in para 54, 76, 80 as explained for claim 3. Therefore the first application may be a navigational application and the second application may be a media player. That both accessory display devices in the vehicle - and thus both the second and third user interfaces - are displaying concurrently is obvious in view of Ricci, as explained for claim 1.
11. Regarding claim 5, the at least two vehicle displays are structurally integrated into a vehicle (Bull para 19, 20, and 38 show how at least two vehicle displays are structurally integrated into the vehicle at different places within the vehicle).
12. Regarding claim 6, at least one of the vehicle displays is a primary display, and at least one of the vehicle displays is an auxiliary display (Bull para 19, 20, 38 show how one display may be in the dashboard and another may be in the back seat or passenger part of the vehicle – this would be considered the auxiliary display).
13. Regarding claim 7, the auxiliary display is a rear-seat entertainment display (Bull para 19-20 show the auxiliary display is a back seat display and para 20, 38 show it may be used to play video content).
14. Regarding claim 8, in response to receiving information that an input has been received, sending from the portable electronic device to the first vehicle display and the second vehicle display information updating their respective user interfaces (Bull para 15, 23, 39 show the portable electronic device sends information to update the accessory user interface displays, and Bull para 6, 15, 23 show this includes in response to interactive data from the user). That both accessory display devices in the vehicle - and thus both the second and third user interfaces - are displaying concurrently is obvious in view of Ricci, as explained for claim 1. Given the combination, each accessory user interface would receive updates concurrently.
15. Regarding claim 9, in addition to that mentioned for claim 8, the portable electronic device also updates portable device display in response to the input (Bull para 6, 15, 36, 39 show the portable electronic device also gets updated in response to user input on any of the interfaces).
16. Regarding claim 10, the third user interface is associated with the second application executed by the portable electronic device, distinct from the first application executed by the portable electronic device (Bull para 20, 38 shows the second accessory display interface in the vehicle [thus corresponding to the third user interface] may play video content while the first accessory display device may have other content). Para 20 shows the other content on the first accessory display interface may be from a navigational application, and this is also shown in para 54, 76, 80 as explained for claim 3. Therefore the first application may be a navigational application and the second application may be a media player. That both accessory display devices in the vehicle - and thus both the second and third user interfaces - are displaying concurrently is obvious in view of Ricci, as explained for claim 1.
17. Claims 11-15 show the same features as claims 1-5 respectively and are rejected for the same reasons. Furthermore, Bull shows the computer readable storage medium storing programs comprising instructions that are executed by the portable electronic device (which includes the portable display) to perform the method steps (para 35, 82 show the memory devices storing the program instructions that are executed by the portable electronic device to perform the method steps, and as noted above para 10 shows the portable electronic device includes the portable display with user interface).
18. Claims 16-20 show the same features as claims 1-5 respectively and are rejected for the same reasons. Furthermore, Bull para 10 shows the portable device display, para 34-35 show the processors and memory device, and para 35, 82 show the memory devices storing the programs with instructions that are executed by the processors to perform the method steps.
Conclusion
19. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
a) Brener (US 9342983 B1) shows a smartphone which mirrors its interface to a display on a vehicle dashboard.
b) Masuda (US 2013/0076496 A1) presents an interface generated by a portable device on different vehicle displays and changes the focus based on user input.
c) Bae (US 2005/0149269 A1) shows a vehicle display system that integrates navigation information from a portable electronic device.
20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN PAUL SAX whose telephone number is (571)272-4072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 - 6:00 Est.
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, Usmaan Saeed, can be reached at 571-272-4046. 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.
/STEVEN P SAX/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2146