DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the application filed on ----11/18/2025 for application 18/293,019. Claim 18 – 34 are pending and have been examined.
Respond to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 11/18/2025 has been entered..
Respond to Argument
Applicant's remark filed on 11/18/2025 has been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant stated that “DE '234 accordingly discloses the use of pressure switches allows quick and easy performance of steps that are frequently performed by the user … This does not disclose or suggest that the frequency with which the steps or the actions are used to determine a rank as claimed. Accordingly, the combination of Hoon and Gustav does not disclose or suggest the determination of the first and second rank in the manner claimed and therefore the combination does not render independent claim 18 obvious.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The primary reference Hoon teaches ranking buttons by scores and “button (menu) of a functions preferred by the driver … displaying a customized function selection menu considering the tendency of the driver according to the driving situation” (Hoon translation page 5). i.e., Hoon teaches to consider the selection/ranking of menu considering “the tendency of the driver”. Hoon reference does not explicitly use the term “frequency of interaction performed by the driver”, Gustav reference discloses: “allows selection of a function from a number of functions”, “Select functions in the display fields associated with the pushbuttons are displayed. Above all, these can be functions that are chosen very frequently”, “The arrangement of pressure switches around a rotary switch is around ergonomically favorable, since the user the desired pressure switch starting from the Without checking, the control unit can be touched and pressed on the monitor unit, without that other pressure switches have to be run over with your finger”(Gustav, translation page 7). i.e., Gustav use the “frequently chosen” to rank/arrange the button/functions in order to simplify/reduce the menu operation by the user. Thus, the combination renders obviousness of the claimed limitation. Examiner further notes that “one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” 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) (MPEP 2145 IV).
Therefore, Examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 18 – 19, 22 – 23, 25 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoon, KR20190078703 in view of Gustav et al., (hereinafter Gustav), EP1582393.
Claim 18. Hoon discloses: A method for displaying an individual home screen on a display device of a vehicle (Fig. 1, & translation page 2, the disclosed method is about displaying virtual menu (screen) on windshield/head up display (display device) ), the method:
receiving at least a first request generated by a provider associated with a first vehicle component regarding a consideration for displaying a first functionality symbol of the first vehicle component; receiving at least a second request generated by a further provider associated with a second vehicle component regarding a consideration for displaying a second functionality symbol of the second vehicle component (translation page 2, “a vehicle terminal for receiving and storing the association score for each function button calculated by the server, and displaying a plurality of context-based virtual buttons in the order of the association scores according to the driving situation of the vehicle on the display”; translation page 4, “in addition to the operation of existing clusters (of components) and navigation (AVN) (component), an ADAS (Advanced Driver Assistance Systems) (component) and various convenience devices (component) have been added for convenience of operation”; i.e., the system receives scores associated with multiple vehicle components for the button of the component functions to be displayed on the screen);
determining a context cluster using current context data of the vehicle (translation page 2, “displaying a plurality (cluster) of context-based virtual buttons in the order of the association scores according to the driving situation of the vehicle on the display”);
determining a first rank for the first request of the first vehicle component in the context cluster and determining a second rank for the second request of the second vehicle component in the context cluster (translation page 4, “calculating a relevance score for each function button of the vehicle necessary for the recognized driving situation”);
comparing the first rank with at least the second rank determined for the context cluster; and displaying the individual home screen assigned to the display device with the first functionality symbol having a higher priority than the second functionality symbol responsive to the first rank being greater than the second rank, or the second functionality symbol having a higher priority than the first functionality symbol responsive to the second rank being greater than the first rank (refer to the mapping above & translation page 3, “displays the context-based virtual buttons on the display unit 230 according to the order in which the association degree score is high in the association degree score table for each function button”; i.e., the display order of the functional button is based on the score),
Hoon does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first rank is determined depending on a type and frequency of interaction performed by a user relating to the first vehicle component of the context cluster, and
wherein the second rank is determined depending on a type and frequency of interaction performed by the user relating to the second vehicle component of the context cluster.
Gustav, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach:
wherein the first rank is determined depending on a type and frequency of interaction performed by a user relating to the first vehicle component of the context cluster, and wherein the second rank is determined depending on a type and frequency of interaction performed by the user relating to the second vehicle component of the context cluster (Gustav, translation page 7, “these can be functions that are chosen very frequently or the functions shown on the display associated with the rotary switch are superior”, “since the user the desired pressure switch starting from the Without checking, the control unit can be touched and pressed on the monitor unit, without that other pressure switches have to be run over with your finger, creating a erroneous pressing of another pressure switch is prevented.” ; Gustav teaches that the user interaction frequency is a factor for arranging the functionality of the buttons; The functions/buttons that can be accessed through touch display and rotary switch are ‘a type’).
Hoon and Gustav both teach method of vehicle display and control and are analogous. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable likelihood of success to further include the user interaction frequency consideration taught by Gustav in the system of Hoon to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification in order to increase convenience and reduce error (Gustav, translation page 7).
Claim 19. Hoon and Gustav combination renders obviousness of all the limitation of Claim 18. The combination further teach: the at least one first request of the first vehicle component or the at least one second request of the second vehicle component is only generated by the providers associated with the first or the second vehicle component if a predetermined rule is fulfilled (Hoon, translation page 8 & fig. 6, “vehicle controller 250 can display an in-vehicle air conditioning operation menu (button) based on the outside temperature and the elapsed time of the start time when the driver starts the vehicle running on the vehicle (S1)”; i.e., the request/display of functionality button is based on a predetermined rule).
Claim 22. Hoon and Gustav combination renders obviousness of all the limitation of Claim 18. The combination further teach: the user interacts with a vehicle component by clicking on a symbol, swiping away from the symbol, no interaction with the symbol, or activation via a sub-menu (Gustav, translation page 7, “a plurality of Controls for selecting functions of a main function, a Selection element for selecting sub-functions of the functions and a return element to return to the parent level”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable likelihood of success to further include the function/sub-function arrangement taught by Gustav in the system of Hoon to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification for “improved menu guidance” (Gustav, translation page 7).
Claim 23. Hoon and Gustav combination renders obviousness of all the limitation of Claim 18. The combination further teach: the first rank and the second rank are determined in predetermined time steps, the comparison of the first and second ranks is performed in predetermined time steps, or the determining of the context cluster is performed in predetermined time steps (Hoon, translation page 8, “based on the outside temperature and the elapsed time of the start time”, ” based on the current running time, running elapsed time”, “display a recommendation (search) menu suitable for a situation such as a nearby restaurant or a drive-through by utilizing the present operating time, the elapsed time”; i.e., the menu displays are based on the context of the vehicle environment/operation and can depend on predetermined time elapsed/steps).
Claim 25. Hoon and Gustav combination renders obviousness of all the limitation of Claim 18. The combination further teach: displaying of the first functionality symbol or the second functionality symbol is suppressed as long as the rank for the requests of associated vehicle components falls below a predefined threshold (Hoon, translation page 5, “display the size of the virtual button in a descending order of the association score of the function buttons”; i.e., the button are becoming smaller (suppressed) when it falls below its current rank (predefined threshold) ).
Claim 34. Claim 34 is the corresponding display device claim of Claim 18. Hoon further teach: a display screen and at least one electronic computing device coupled to the display screen (Hoon fig. 1 & 2). Claim 34 is rejected with same reason.
Claim(s) 20 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoon, KR20190078703 in view of Gustav et al., (hereinafter Gustav), EP1582393 as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Shan et al., (hereinafter Shan), US20180121431.
Claim 20. Hoon and Gustav combination renders obviousness of all the limitation of Claim 18. The combination does not explicitly teach: the first rank and the second rank are determined using evolving beta distributions having increasing or decreasing mean values, wherein the increasing and decreasing mean values are associated with the rank.
Shan, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach:
the first rank and the second rank are determined using evolving beta distributions having increasing or decreasing mean values, wherein the increasing and decreasing mean values are associated with the rank (Shan, 0029, “the categories of content are ranked, in operation 110 via at least one processor, utilizing the estimated category usage on each category. In the context of the present description, the foregoing ranking may include any setting or adjustment of a relative order, relative position, and/or any other relative aspect of the content categories, that is a function of the estimated category usage on each category”; 0034 “In one possible embodiment, the Dirichlet distribution may be a multivariate generalization of a beta distribution”; 0032, “the ranking of operation 110 may be dynamically adjusted (evolving) based on the additional individual usage data”; 0035, “at least one parameter may include … a mean parameter”).
Hoon (in view of Gustav) and Shan both teach method of user interface grouping, ranking based on usage and are analogous. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable likelihood of success to further include the ranking based on usage beta-distribution taught by Shan in the system of Hoon (in view of Gustav) to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification in order to “improving an overall user experience” (Shan, 0008).
Claim 21. Hoon, Gustav and Shan combination renders obviousness of all the limitation of Claim 26. The combination further teach: evolving the beta distribution is performed by updating parameters according predefined rules depending on type of interaction by the user (Shan, 0095, “the aforementioned first weight w1 and second weight w2 (and thus the content ranking) (parameters) may be dynamically adjusted, based on such additional individual usage data zuser”).
Claim(s) 24, 26 – 28, 30 – 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoon, KR20190078703 in view of Gustav et al., (hereinafter Gustav), EP1582393 as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Ricci et al., (hereinafter Ricci), DE112012004773.
Claim 24. Hoon and Gustav combination renders obviousness of all the limitation of Claim 18. The combination does not explicitly teach: display displaying of the first functionality symbol or the second functionality symbol is suppressed depending on an input by the user.
Ricci, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach:
display displaying of the first functionality symbol or the second functionality symbol is suppressed depending on an input by the user (Ricci, translation page 5, “Configurability may involve adjusting one or more customized and / or predefined layouts for display by one or more visual output devices”; translation page 10, “configurable dashboard display may be configured to show different layouts for different zones of a vehicle based on preferences associated with one or more individuals in the different zones (clusters) … This configuration may allow multiple users to monitor and / or access parts of the configurable dashboard display. For example, a user may observe ride controls and indicators from one area of the configurable dashboard display while another user (or passenger) may watch a video and / or change other controls from another area of the display.”; translation page 11, “Further, certain controls and / or features may be selected to be displayed at any given location on the dashboard display. For example, if a user wishes to see a vehicle's analog tachometer in a specific area on the display, the user may place a simulated analog tachometer module / application on the configurable dashboard display”; i.e., user can configure (depending on input by the user) which feature to show/hide).
Hoon (in view of Gustav) and Ricci both teach method of vehicle display and control and are analogous. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable likelihood of success to further include the plurality of configurable GUI taught by Ricci in the system of Hoon (in view of Gustav) to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification in order to “improve performance, to achieve ease, and / or to reduce implementation costs” (Ricci, translation page 26).
Claim 26. Hoon and Gustav combination renders obviousness of all the limitation of Claim 18. The combination does not explicitly teach: each context cluster comprising one or several types of vehicle component requests refers to a subset of contextual features.
Ricci, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach:
each context cluster comprising one or several types of vehicle component requests refers to a subset of contextual features (Ricci, translation page 5, “Configurability may involve adjusting one or more customized and / or predefined layouts for display by one or more visual output devices”; translation page 10, “configurable dashboard display may be configured to show different layouts for different zones of a vehicle based on preferences associated with one or more individuals in the different zones (clusters) … This configuration may allow multiple users to monitor and / or access parts of the configurable dashboard display. For example, a user may observe ride controls and indicators from one area of the configurable dashboard display while another user (or passenger) may watch a video and / or change other controls from another area of the display.” i.e., Ricci, teaches multiple in-vehicle configurable displays. Each display can be configured to include control/button/info of certain components of the vehicle (contextual features)).
The reason for combination is same as Claim 24.
Claim 27. Hoon, Gustav and Ricci combination renders obviousness of all the limitation of Claim 26. The combination further teach: within each context cluster ranks of requests associated with vehicle components are stored or evolved individually (Hoon, translation page 5, “the received score in the table”; the score/rank table is in the memory).
Claim 28. Hoon, Gustav and Ricci combination renders obviousness of all the limitation of Claim 26. The combination further teach: rank of a request associated with an identical vehicle component are implemented at a same time in several context clusters and are evolved individually (Ricci, Fig. 3B, & translation page 20 – 21, “For example, a user can control and configure the HUD device 300 adjust with a position of the vehicle 120 While another user may manipulate controls and / or configurations associated with a different position of the vehicle 120 are associated”; figure 3B, at least, shows that at least some displays (clusters), for example 100 and 108b, display same features/buttons of same component at the same time).
Claim 30. Hoon and Gustav combination renders obviousness of all the limitation of Claim 18. The combination does not explicitly teach: multiple context clusters are arranged in cluster ensembles, wherein each cluster ensemble is processed in a separate kernel in parallel with other cluster ensembles.
Ricci, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach:
multiple context clusters are arranged in cluster ensembles, wherein each cluster ensemble is processed in a separate kernel in parallel with other cluster ensembles (Ricci, translation page 5, “Configurability may involve adjusting one or more customized and / or predefined layouts for display by one or more visual output devices”; translation page 10, “configurable dashboard display may be configured to show different layouts for different zones of a vehicle based on preferences associated with one or more individuals in the different zones (clusters) … This configuration may allow multiple users to monitor and / or access parts of the configurable dashboard display. For example, a user may observe ride controls and indicators from one area of the configurable dashboard display while another user (or passenger) may watch a video and / or change other controls from another area of the display”; the multiple displays/GUI are the cluster ensembles. Each of them can be processed in its own display processors (kernel) at the same time).
The reason for combination is same as Claim 24.
Claim 31. Hoon, Gustav and Ricci combination renders obviousness of all the limitation of Claim 30. The combination further teach: a subset of contextual features is assigned to each cluster ensemble, wherein context clusters in each of these cluster ensembles refer to the subset of contextual features (refer to the mapping in Claim 30, each display GUI (cluster ensemble) displays its own set (subset) of feature buttons of the vehicle components (contextual features) ).
Claim 32. Claim 32. Hoon and Gustav combination renders obviousness of all the limitation of Claim 18. The combination does not explicitly teach: at least one static functionality symbol of a further vehicle component is displayed on the home screen, and wherein the at least one static functionality symbol is always displayed in a non-adaptable manner or adaptable by retracting size.
Ricci, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach:
at least one static functionality symbol of a further vehicle component is displayed on the home screen (Ricci, fig. 2A & translation page 17, “a number of applications for display on the configurable dashboard display 100 be available … warning indicator 224”; translation page 20, “it is anticipated that certain features will be considered more important than others … a warning message, an indicator and/or a hint picture 224”; user can configure the screen to display (static) important functions such as warning sign on home screen), and wherein the at least one static functionality symbol is always displayed in a non-adaptable manner or adaptable by retracting size (Ricci, translation page 24, “when an emergency is detected … Visual indicators may emphasize an existing and / or newly displayed application … the visual indicator may remove the emphasis on non-essential displayed applications. This removal may, but is not limited to, take one or more of the following forms: dimming, concealing, remeasuring, and generally changing the display of one or more applications”; Ricci teaches to emphasize/remove emphasize important function buttons/image on home screen when the driving situation changed, Hoon and Gustav combination teaches to adapt the size of the function buttons/images to emphasize the ranking/importance of certain function button, the combination renders obviousness of the limitation).
The reason for combination is same as Claim 24.
Claim 33. Gustav and Ricci combination renders obviousness of all the limitation of Claim 32. The combination further teach: the at least one static functionality symbol of a further vehicle component is adapted in size, if a symbol associated with a further vehicle function requested by a provider with higher rank than a static default rank has to be shown on the display area with limited space (refer to the mapping in Claim 32, the combination renders obviousness of the adaptive sizing of important features buttons in user configurable home screen with functions that user select to always display).
Claim(s) 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoon, KR20190078703 in view of Gustav et al., (hereinafter Gustav), EP1582393 as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Bielby, US20210382586.
Claim 29. Hoon and Gustav combination renders obviousness of all the limitation of Claim 18. The combination does not explicitly teach: the context cluster is established by training a neural network.
Bielby, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach:
the context cluster is established by training a neural network (Bielby, 0057, “For example, the computing system 101 may perform a clustering analysis on features to identify a cluster of similar features. The computing system 101 may employ a neural network to identify one or more rules that characterize a feature … Training data may be provided by a user to specify types of rules or user interface options he or she prefers”; ).
Hoon (in view of Gustav) and Bielby both teach method of vehicle display and control and are analogous. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable likelihood of success to further include the use of neural network for the clustering of user interface taught by Bielby in the system of Hoon (in view of Gustav) to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification in order to “generate a smooth user interface for interaction with the driver or passengers.” (Bielby, 0010).
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 SHIEN MING CHOU whose telephone number is (571)272-9354. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9 am - 5 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, HELAL ALGAHAIM can be reached on (571) 270-5227. 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.
/SHIEN MING CHOU/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3666