DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is non-final and is in response to the claims filed February 11, 2026. Claims 1-17 are currently pending, of which claims 1-7, 9, and 11-16 are currently amended. Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-13, 15, and 16 remain rejected.
Response to Arguments
Specification
Applicant has amended the title and the new title has been accepted and entered. Therefore, the previous objection has been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation Under 35 USC 112
Applicant merely requests that the claim interpretation be withdrawn but presents no reason for doing so. Examiner merely notes that the claim interpretation remains.
Prior Art Rejections
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previously cited art have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that Tu does not teach the display orientation as claimed, and that “the locking component is the display orientation, not the display device”. Furthermore, Applicant alleges that “there is no driving circuit on the vehicle for driving the display screen in Tu.” See Remarks 9-10. Examiner respectfully disagrees with these remarks as well as the characterization of the claim language and the prior art.
In response to 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). Examiner notes that the rejection is one of obviousness in view of both Gothlin and Tu. Gothlin has been explicitly cited for the vast majority of the claim language, including “rotat[ing] the display screen unit 2 so that the display screen 8 can be altered between the portrait and landscape orientations depending on the driving mode”. See Gothlin para. [0042]. Tu is merely cited to show that the rotating of the screen (as performed in Gothlin) can be performed in response to the vehicle of Gothlin moving. See Tu para. [0069]. Therefore, the display of Gothlin will not rotate until it is no longer in a high dynamic state, such as the vehicle in motion of Gothlin.
Finally, Examiner notes that Applicant discusses configuration files, storage locations and controllers. See Remarks 10. None of this language is in any of the claims at issue so Examiner is unclear how to further respond to these arguments. Additionally, Examiner encourages Applicant to again review the allowable subject matter of claims 5 and 14.
It is for at least these reasons, and the reasons cited below, that the claims remain rejected in this Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7, 9, and 11-16 are objected to for the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “to suspend working in response to the vehicle is in a driving state” and this limitation contains grammatical issues. The claim could read “…the vehicle being in a driving state”. Claim 9 recites similar language and is objected to for at least the same reasons therein.
Claim 2 recites “in response to the display screen is in the landscape state” and “in response to the display screen is in the portrait state” and these limitations both contain grammatical issues. As an example, Examiner encourages replacing “is” with “being” (as discussed above in claim 1). Claim 11 recites similar language and is objected to for at least the same reasons therein.
Claim 3 recites “in response to the display screen is in the landscape state” and this limitation contains grammatical issues. As an example, Examiner encourages replacing “is” with “being” (as discussed above in claim 1). Claim 12 recites similar language and is objected to for at least the same reasons therein.
Claim 4 recites “in response to the display screen is in the portrait state” and this limitation contains grammatical issues. As an example, Examiner encourages replacing “is” with “being” (as discussed above in claim 1). Claim 13 recites similar language and is objected to for at least the same reasons therein.
Claim 5 recites “in response to the rotation acceleration is greater than…” and “in response to the rotation acceleration is less than…” and these limitations both contain grammatical issues. As an example, Examiner encourages replacing “is” with “being” (as discussed above in claim 1). Claim 14 recites similar language and is objected to for at least the same reasons therein.
Claim 6 recites “in response to the temperature…is greater than or equal to…” and this limitation contains grammatical issues. As an example, Examiner encourages replacing “is” with “being” (as discussed above in claim 1). Claim 15 recites similar language and is objected to for at least the same reasons therein.
Claim 7 recites “in response to a current detected….is greater than or equal to…” and this limitation contains grammatical issues. As an example, Examiner encourages replacing “is” with “being” (as discussed above in claim 1). Claim 16 recites similar language and is objected to for at least the same reasons therein.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “rotation controller”, “position detection device”, “first photoelectric sensor”, “second photoelectric sensor”, “acceleration detection device”, “temperature detecting device”, and “voltage conversion circuit” in claims 1-17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art rejections below cite particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their 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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gothlin et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0011551; hereinafter “Gothlin”) and further in view of Tu (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0328935)
As per claim 1, Gothlin teaches a display control device, applied to a vehicle, the display control device comprising:
a rotation controller configured to receive a first rotation signal, a second rotation signal, and a vehicle status signal (See Gothlin para. [0042]: “rotate the display screen unit 2 so that the display screen 8 can be altered between the portrait and landscape orientations depending on the driving mode”);
a drive circuit, an input end of the drive circuit being electrically connected with the rotation controller, and an output end of the drive circuit being electrically connected with a display screen (See Gothlin paras. [0042-43]: “the electric motor 11 rotates the drive shaft 12 with pinion 13 that in turn rotates the gear unit 14, translation unit 3 and display screen unit 2. The rotational movement is steered by a control unit 16 that secures that the display screen 8 is rotated 90° between the portrait and landscape orientations depending on the driving mode of the vehicle”),
wherein the rotation controller is configured to control the drive circuit to output a first drive signal to drive the display screen to a landscape state in response to receiving the first rotation signal, and control the drive circuit to output a second drive signal to drive the display screen to a portrait state in response to receiving the second rotation signal (See Gothlin paras. [0039-40]: different driving modes associated with different display orientation), and
the rotation controller is further configured to control the drive circuit to drive the display screen to a corresponding position according to the vehicle status signal (See Gothlin paras. [0042-43]: rotating the display screen accordingly).
However, while Gothlin teaches display orientation corresponding to vehicle status signals, Gothlin does not explicitly suspend the orientations while the vehicle is in motion.
Tu teaches the rotation controller is further configured to control the drive circuit to suspend working in response to the vehicle is in a driving state (See Tu para. [0069]: “If the mobile device is in a high dynamic state, the mobile device locks its display orientation (504), such that no movement of mobile device will result in a change of the display orientation until the mobile device is no longer in the high dynamic state”. Therefore, the display of Gothlin will not rotate until it is no longer in a high dynamic state, such as the vehicle in motion of Gothlin).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the rotary motor and orientations of Gothlin with the orientation states of Tu. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose orientation signals for devices and Tu further enhances the signals of Gothlin by ensuring that the orientation of the device does not constantly change, increasing the stability and readability of the screen, and providing accurate and faster orientation information when necessary (See Tu para. [0012]).
As per claim 2, Gothlin/Tu further teaches the display control device of claim 1, further comprising a position detection device electrically connected with the rotation controller, wherein the position detection device is configured to detect a position of the display screen, and output a landscape position signal in response to the display screen is in the landscape state, and output a portrait position signal in response to the display screen is in the portrait state (See Gothlin paras. [0014], [0042], and [0046]: “display screen unit 2 has a portrait orientation in the first operational mode…and a landscape orientation in the second operational mode; para. [0062]: there are executable instructions to implement said orientation changing features), and
the rotation controller is further configured to control the drive circuit to suspend outputting the first drive signal or the second drive signal in response to receiving the landscape position signal or the portrait position signal, or the rotation controller is further configured to control the drive circuit to continue outputting the first drive signal or the second drive signal in response to not receiving the landscape position signal or the portrait position signal (See Gothlin paras. [0042] and [0061]: “The display screen unit 2 has a portrait orientation in the first operational mode, where the vehicle is in the manual driving mode in which the driver manually operates the vehicle, and a landscape orientation in the second operational mode, where the vehicle is in the autonomous driving mode in which the vehicle has an autonomous driving functionality. The system can be programmed to automatically change the orientation of the display screen 8 when the vehicle changes between the driving modes.”).
As per claims 9 and 11, the claims are directed to a vehicle that implements the same features as the display control device of claims 1 and 2, respectively, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
As per claim 10, Gothlin teaches the vehicle of claim 9, wherein the vehicle further comprises a rotation assembly electrically connected with the display control device, and the rotation assembly is connected with the display screen, and the rotation assembly is configured to output a driving signal to drive the rotation assembly to drive the rotation assembly to rotate and thus drive the display screen to rotate (See Gothlin paras. [0042-43]: “the electric motor 11 rotates the drive shaft 12 with pinion 13 that in turn rotates the gear unit 14, translation unit 3 and display screen unit 2. The rotational movement is steered by a control unit 16 that secures that the display screen 8 is rotated 90° between the portrait and landscape orientations depending on the driving mode of the vehicle”).
Claims 3, 4, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gothlin/Tu as applied above, and further in view of Celebisoy et al. (U.S. 2013/0120458).
As per claim 3, Gothlin/Tu teaches the display control device of claim 2. However, while Gothlin/Tu teaches position detection, Gothlin/Tu does not explicitly teach or suggest using a photoelectric sensor to determine the orientation.
Celebisoy teaches wherein the position detection device comprises a first photoelectric sensor electrically connected with the rotation controller, and the first photoelectric sensor is configured to output the landscape position signal in response to the display screen is in the landscape state (See Celebisoy para. [0027]: photoelectric sensors can be used to detect screen orientations. This would apply to the landscape position signal of Gothlin/Tu).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the screen orientation changes of Gothlin/Tu with the photoelectric sensors of Celebisoy. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose orientation detection in display screens and Celebisoy enhances the orientation detections of of Gothlin/Tu using proximity sensors such as photoelectric sensors “can be more accurate at determining the display orientation intended by the user” (See Celebisoy para. [0056]).
As per claim 4, Gothlin/Tu teaches the display control device of claim 2. However, while Gothlin/Tu teaches position detection, Gothlin/Tu does not explicitly teach or suggest using a photoelectric sensor to determine the orientation.
Celebisoy teaches wherein the position detection device comprises a second photoelectric sensor electrically connected with the rotation controller, and the second photoelectric sensor is configured to output the portrait position signal in response to the display screen is in the portrait state (See Celebisoy para. [0027]: photoelectric sensors can be used to detect screen orientations. This would apply to the portrait position signal of Gothlin/Tu).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Gothlin/Tu with the teachings of Celebisoy for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 3.
As per claims 12 and 13, the claims are directed to a vehicle that implements the same features as the display control device of claims 3 and 4, respectively, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Claims 6, 7, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gothlin/Tu as applied above, and further in view of Jeung (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0039055),
As per claim 6, Gothlin/Tu teaches the display control device of claim 1. However, while Gothlin/Tu teaches the rotation controller, Gothlin/Tu does not teach or suggest a temperature component to that controller.
Jeung teaches a temperature measuring device, wherein the temperature measuring device is electrically connected with the rotation controller, the temperature detecting device is configured to detect a temperature of the rotation controller, and the rotation controller is further configured to suspend working in response to the temperature detected by the temperature detecting device is greater than or equal to a preset temperature (See Jeung paras. [0016] and [0020]: “If the operating temperature of the motor is equal to or exceeds the highest reference temperature value, the controller sends a signal to slow down or stop the motor”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the rotary motor of Gothlin/Tu with the temperature controls of Jeung. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose controlling motors based on various signals and Jeung enhances the rotary motor of Gothlin/Tu because it would be a benefit to prevent overheating in the motor, where overheating could otherwise “cause malfunction of the motor or cause mechanical damage to the motor” (See Jeung para. [0004]).
As per claim 7, Gothlin/Tu teaches the display control device of claim 1. However, while Gothlin/Tu teaches the rotation controller, Gothlin/Tu does not teach or suggest a current component to that controller.
Jeung teaches a current detection circuit, wherein the current detection circuit is electrically connected with the rotation controller and the drive circuit, and the rotation controller is further configured to control the drive circuit to suspend working in response to a current detected by the current sensing circuit is greater than or equal to a preset current (See Jeung paras. [0006] and [0015-18]: electrical current supplied to the windings of the motor, such as the rotational motor of Gothlin/Tu. The motor can lower the current in order to avoid overheating, which could be “a signal to slow down or stop the motor”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Gothlin/Tu with the teachings of Jeung for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 6.
As per claims 15 and 16, the claims are directed to a vehicle that implements the same features as the display control device of claims 6 and 7, respectively, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 8, 14, and 17 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. Regarding claims 5 and 13, the prior art of record does not explicitly teach or suggest the rotation acceleration as claimed as it relates to the drive circuit and the current reduction. Furthermore, regarding claims 8 and 17 the prior art does not explicitly teach or suggest the voltage conversion. While the cited art does teach some of the electrical-related language as discussed above, it does not teach this level of specifics regarding the voltage conversion in the specific order and combination written therein.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Nicholas Klicos whose telephone number is (571)270-5889. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 AM-5:00 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, Scott Baderman can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/NICHOLAS KLICOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118