DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action for U.S. Patent Application 18/219,533 is responsive to communications filed on 10/2/25, in reply to the Non-Final Rejection of 7/2/25. Currently, claims 1-19 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 7, 14, and 15 are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/2/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues on pages 6-7 of the Response that claim 1 has been rewritten to include certain limitations of allowable claim 1 and is therefore allowable.
However, Applicant has amended claim 1 with only a portion of claim 7 and not the entirety of claim 7. Therefore, the amendment to claim 1 requires reconsideration and further search on its own as it is different than the allowable subject matter indicated for claim 7 in the Non-Final Office Action dated 7/2/25.
The Sailer reference teaches in Fig. 6 and paragraph [0039] that the display device 160 may be moved along a lateral track 216 [sic 214] of the inner track 212 to position the display device 160 further away from the seats 150. In addition, to reposition the display device 160 along an inner track [see different positions of display device 160]…commands are sent to the display controller 162 to move the display device 160 along the inner track 212 (para[0049]). Thus, the “starting point” of the movement/transfer of the display device from the center to further away from the seats 150 controller 162 would read on the amendment to claim 1.
Therefore, Szczerba and Sailer teach all of the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Applicant is directed to the below-stated rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 2-6, 10-11, 14, and 19, please see the above-stated discussion for claim 1 and the below-stated rejection of the claims.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-6, 10-11, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szczerba et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0089575) in view of Sailer et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0189418).
In regard to claim 1, Szczerba teaches an in-vehicle video system (i.e., visual display utilized for infotainment and navigation purposes; a virtual 3D display for a motor vehicle) (para[0002], [0004]); comprising:
a display provided on an internal surface of a vehicle (i.e., two display panels 114 and 116) (Figs. 1A-1D; para[0037]) and…;
a transfer unit provided on an internal side of the display with respect to the vehicle and configured to slide along a fixing member fixed to a floor of the vehicle (i.e., in various implementations, the displays 114 and 116 slid along tracks in the ceiling and/or floor of the cabin 70) (Figs. 1A-1D; para[0037]) on a frontward and rearward direction or a left and right direction of the vehicle within the vehicle (i.e., Figs. 2B and 2C are side views of the rollable display shown in Fig. 6A; the posts 102 slide in the tracks 134 and 136, while posts 140 slide outward towards the sides of the cabin) (para[0031], [0039]); and…
However, Szczerba does not explicitly teach configured to display a screen by receiving a video signal, nor does it teach a controller configured to determine a movement direction and a movement position of the transfer unit sliding in the frontward and rearward direction or the left and right direction and control the display and the transfer unit to transition the screen of the display in accordance with a movement path of the transfer unit based on the movement direction and the movement position of the transfer unit, nor does it teach wherein the controller is configured to determine a sliding starting point based on the movement position of the transfer unit.
In the same field of endeavor, Sailer teaches configured to display a screen by receiving a video signal (i.e., passenger area of the vehicle 102 may include a display device 160; the term “screen,” “display screen,” or “display”…can refer to a surface area upon which text, graphics and video are temporarily made to appear for human viewing) (Figs. 4-5; para[0025]) and teaches a controller configured to determine a movement direction and a movement position of the transfer unit sliding in the frontward and rearward direction or the left and right direction (i.e., a seat controller 152a may then execute commands by controlling motors or actuators in the seat 150a; similarly, the display controller 162 may be co-located with the display device 160 and wirelessly receive commands from the communication component 146; the display controller 162 may execute the commands to change the position and orientation of the display device 160; the display device 160 may be mounted to an inner track 212, which may include a longitudinal track 214 and a lateral track 216) (Figs. 1-2; para[0032]) and control the display and the transfer unit to transition the screen of the display in accordance with a movement path of the transfer unit based on the movement direction and the movement position of the transfer unit (i.e., one display device 160 mounted to the floor 106 via tracks; the display device 160 may be mounted to an inner track 212, which may include a longitudinal track 214 and a lateral track 216; as illustrated, the outer track 210 may at least partially surrounds the inner track 212; for example, the outer track to tend to have generally rectangular shape with rounded corners; other examples our tracks to be provided, for example an elliptical shape or a U-shaped; the display device 160 may include support that allows the display device 160 to rotate about a horizontal axis and optionally rotate about vertical axis; a linear actuator may be connected between a vertical member of the support in the display device 160 to control rotation about the horizontal axis) (Figs. 1-2; para[0032], [0034]) and teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine a sliding starting point based on the movement position of the transfer unit (i.e., the display device 160 may be moved along a lateral track 216 [sic 214] of the inner track 212 to position the display device 160 further away from the seats 150; to reposition the display device 160 along an inner track [see different positions of display device 160]…commands are sent to the display controller 162 to move the display device 160 along the inner track 212; therefore, the “starting point” of the movement/transfer of the display device from the center to further away from the seats 150 controller 162 would read on this claim limitation) (Fig. 6; para[0039], [0049]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Szczerba with those of Sailer because Sailer teaches a passenger area of a vehicle including a display device for the use of vehicle video systems and video infotainment systems (See, for example, para[0025], [0027] of Sailer). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Szczerba with those of Sailer.
In regard claim 3, Szczerba and Sailer teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Szczerba teaches wherein the transfer unit includes an internal space in which a roller unit is mounted in a width direction of the vehicle (i.e., the display 100 unrolls from the post 101 as indicated by the arrows 110 and 112 (Fig. 1B), to create two display panels 114 and 116 that extend outwards as indicated by the arrows 102, 104, 106 and 108) (Figs. 1A-1D; para[0037]) .
In regard claim 4, Szczerba and Sailer teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3 as discussed above. In addition, Szczerba teaches wherein the roller unit is configured to be stored in the internal space or withdrawn downward (i.e., a rollable display 100 initially wrapped about post 101 situated in a cabin 70) (Figs. 1A-1D; para[0037]).
In regard claim 5, Szczerba and Sailer teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Szczerba does not explicitly teach wherein the fixing member is disposed at a bottom portion of the transfer unit and includes a motor providing a driving force for the transfer unit to slide in the frontward and rearward direction or the left and right direction within the vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Sailer teaches wherein the fixing member is disposed at a bottom portion of the transfer unit and includes a motor providing a driving force for the transfer unit to slide in the frontward and rearward direction or the left and right direction within the vehicle (i.e., the display device 160 may be mounted to the inner track to 12 in a similar manner as the seats 150 are mounted to the outer track 210; the display device 160 may include support that allows the display device 160 to rotate about a horizontal axis and optionally rotate about a vertical axis; for example, the support may include a horizontally mounted hinge to allow for rotation about the horizontal axis; a linear actuator may be connected between the vertical member of the support on the display device 162 control rotation about the horizontal axis, which may be limited to 90°) (Figs. 1-2; para[0034]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Szczerba with those of Sailer for the same reasons as those discussed above for claim 1.
In regard claim 6, Szczerba and Sailer teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Szczerba teaches wherein the transfer unit is configured to be divided into at least two portions, which are respectively slidable in the frontward and rearward direction or the left and right direction within the vehicle (i.e., referring now to Figs. 1A through 1D, there is shown a rollable display 100 initially wrapped about a post 101 and situated in a cabin 70; in various implementations, the displays 114 and 116 slid along tracks in the ceiling and/or floor the cabin 70 to provide privacy screens for viewing by the occupants of the seats 72, 74, 76 and 78; as shown in Fig. 10, a set of posts 102 telescope up from the floor the cabin 70, and, as shown in Fig. 1D, the posts 102 slide outwards as indicated by the arrows 102 to bend the displays 114 and 116) (Figs. 1A-1D, 10; para[0037]-[0038]).
In regard claim 10, Szczerba and Sailer teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 6 as discussed above. However, Szczerba does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to transition the screen of the display to be displayed on a side of the vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Sailer teaches teach wherein the controller is configured to transition the screen of the display to be displayed on a side of the vehicle (i.e., Fig. 6 illustrates a series of seating arrangements, 600, 610, 620 that may be used to alter the cabin of a vehicle to accommodate the needs of passengers; in the seating arrangement 600, the seats 150 maybe located along one side of the outer track 210; the display device 160 may be moved along the lateral track 216 of the inner track to 12 to position the display device 160 further away from the seats 150, for example, to improve viewing angles of the display device 116 for the passengers) (Fig. 6; para[0039]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Szczerba with those of Sailer for the same reasons as those discussed above for claim 1.
In regard claim 11, Szczerba and Sailer teach all of the limitations of claims 1, 6, and 10 as discussed above. However, Szczerba does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to rotate a vehicle seat to face the side onto which the screen is transitioned along with transitioning the screen of the display.
In the same field of endeavor, Sailer teaches wherein the controller is configured to rotate a vehicle seat to face the side onto which the screen is transitioned along with transitioning the screen of the display (i.e., Fig. 6 illustrates a series of seating arrangements, 600, 610, 620 that may be used to alter the cabin of the vehicle to accommodate the needs of passengers; in the seating arrangement 600, the seats 150 maybe located along one side of the outer track 210; method 700 may include moving one or more seats along an outer track, each seat individually mounted to the outer track) (Figs. 6-7; para[0039]-[0043]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Szczerba with those of Sailer for the same reasons as those discussed above for claim 1.
In regard to claim 14, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
In regard to claim 19, Szczerba teaches does not explicitly teach a non-transitory computer readable storage medium on which a program for performing the video control method of claim 14 (please refer to the above-stated rejections of claims 1 and 14) is recorded.
In the same field of endeavor, Sailer teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium on which a program for performing the video control method of claim 14 (please refer to the above-stated rejections of claims 1 and 14) is recorded (i.e., the removable storage unit 818 includes a computer usable storage medium having stored therein computer software and/or data) (para[0052]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Szczerba with those of Sailer for the same reasons as those discussed above for claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szczerba et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0089575) in view of Sailer et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0189418), and in view of Guo et al. (CN114238857).
In regard claim 2, Szczerba and Sailer teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Szczerba and Sailer do not explicitly teach wherein the transfer unit is formed in an annular shape with an open bottom portion.
In the same field of endeavor, Guo teaches wherein the transfer unit is formed in an annular shape with an open bottom portion (i.e., the annular screen is installed in front of the fixed cockpit, is an annular screen of 120º) (page 2, lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Szczerba and Sailer with those of Guo because Guo teaches the use of an annular screen as part of a system for improving the learning effect of a driving simulator (See, for example, page 1, Summary of the Disclosure of Guo). Therefore it would been obvious to combine the teachings of Szczerba and Sailer with those of Guo.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9, 12-13, and 15-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 Kristin Dobbs whose telephone number is (571)270-7936. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Thursday 9:30am-5:30pm 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, Sathyanarayanan Perungavoor can be reached at (571)272-7455. 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.
KRISTIN DOBBS
Examiner
Art Unit 2488
/KRISTIN DOBBS/Examiner, Art Unit 2488
/SATH V PERUNGAVOOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2488