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 .
Response to Arguments
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 10/9/2025. This action is made FINAL.
Claim 3 is cancelled.
Claims 1-2 and 4-12 are pending for examination.
Regarding the interview dated 10/8/2025, claim 1 was not amended to further specify the content of the feedback as the driver’s deficient action, therefore the amendments to claim 1 do not overcome the currently cited prior art. Regarding claim 4, due to the time constraints of an interview, a definite determination regarding the proposed amendments could not be made. At the time, the amendments appeared to overcome the currently cited art as the cited portions of the prior art did not appear to differentiate whether to obscure information based on the content of the information. The examiner therefore noted the amendments appeared to overcome the prior art pending further consideration. Upon further review of the claim language in light of the specification and a thorough read through of the prior art, newly cited portions of the prior art disclose the amended limitations. The examiner apologizes for any misunderstanding.
Regarding the objection(s) to the specification (title), the examiner finds applicant’s amendment(s) to the specification filed 10/9/2025 acceptable and withdraws the objection(s) to the specification (title).
Regarding the Means plus function invocation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f), the examiner finds the most recent amendment(s) to the claim(s) provide sufficient structure to overcome the means plus function invocation. The claim(s) do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), applicant’s arguments are persuasive in view of applicant’s amendment to the claim(s), therefore the rejections are now withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-2 and 4-12 under 35 U.S.C §103, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are not persuasive. In the remarks, applicant argued the following points. The examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the reasons outlined below each point.
“Heck cannot be relied upon in the manner the Office suggested. Heck discusses providing feedback by displaying a symbol and a text along a symbol. Regarding the symbol, Heck discusses "A possible display of the feedback can show one of several different symbols, such as e.g. B. Smileys provide. Depending on the feedback determined, a sad, neutral or laughing smiley can be displayed. Old natively, a number of stars depending on the feedback can be issued." However, Heck merely discusses displaying different symbols and does not teach or suggest displaying characters directly representing content of the feedback.
Further, Heck does not disclose or suggest displaying the symbol (e.g., a sad face) only, without a character.
As such, Heck neither teaches nor suggests "the image representing the driving diagnosis result in the first manner includes characters directly representing content of the driving diagnosis result, and the image representing the driving diagnosis result in the second manner does not include a character," as recited in claim 1.”, (Remarks, pages 9-10)
Regarding point a, applicant acknowledges that Heck teaches feedback using symbols and text. Applicant first argues that Heck only teaches the use of symbols and does not teach displaying characters directly representing the content of feedback (only different smileys or stars). Applicant then argues that Heck fails to teach the use of symbols only without a character. These arguments contradict each other. Either Heck only uses symbols and no characters, i.e. no text , or only uses symbols and text- both arguments cannot be true. In this case, neither is argument is persuasive as Heck clearly teaches the use of only symbols for negative feedback (Heck, FIG. 1; FIG. 4; Page 6, lines 15-29; page 9, lines 10-17; Where the feedback system 1 uses vehicle display to display the driver feedback as a sad face, without text) and the use of a symbol with characters for positive feedback (Heck, FIG. 1; FIG. 4; Page 6, lines 15-29; page 9, lines 10-17; Where the feedback system 1 uses vehicle display to display the driver feedback as a smiley and text OK). Further, the symbols and text (where text is applicable) directly relate to the driving diagnosis result (Heck, FIG. 1; FIG. 4; Page 6, lines 15-29; page 9, lines 10-17; Where the feedback system 1 uses vehicle display to display the driver feedback as a smiley and text OK indicating a good driving result, and where the feedback system 1 uses vehicle display to display the driver feedback as a sad face, without text, indicating a poor driving result). Therefore Heck teaches the cited limitations.
“Claims 5-7 depend from claim 1, recite additional features, and distinguish over the applied references for at least the same reasons as those discussed with respect to claim 1 and/or for the additionally recited features…
Claim 8 recites features similar to those recited in claim 1, and therefore distinguishes over the applied references for reasons analogous to those discussed with respect to claim 1.”, (Remarks, page 10)
Regarding point b, for at least the reasons outlined above regarding the rejection of independent claim 1, the rejection of dependent claims 5-7 and independent claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is maintained.
“Claim 4 is rewritten in independent form and recites, "classify the driving diagnosis result into a first diagnosis result or a second diagnosis result based on content of the driving diagnosis result, and in response to the mode of the vehicle being set to the second mode, cause the display to display the image representing the second diagnosis result in the second manner, and cause the display to display the image representing the first diagnosis result in the first manner."…
As such, the applied references neither teach nor suggest "in response to the mode of the vehicle being set to the second mode, cause the display to display the image representing the second diagnosis result in the second manner, and cause the display to display the image representing the first diagnosis result in the first manner," as recited in claim 4.
For at least the foregoing reasons, no combination of the applied references would have rendered claim 4 prima facie obvious.”, (Remarks, page 10)
Regarding point c, newly cited portions of Kurian teach parts of the amended limitations. Specifically, Kurian teaches the vehicle determines whether the information to be displayed is a second kind of information that’s allowed to be displayed when another passenger is present or a first kind of information to be obscured in the presence of a second passenger based on the information content (Kurian, ¶[0084]; ¶[0126]; Claim 1) [classify the […] into a first […] or a second […] based on content of the […]] and where the vehicle’s in-dash main screen obscures the first information type when a passenger is present and displays the second information type when a passenger is present (Kurian, ¶[0084]; ¶[0126]; Claim 1) [in response to the mode of the vehicle being set to the second mode, cause the display to display the […] in the second manner and cause the display to display the […] in the first manner]. Heck teaches the missing limitations in brackets, outlined in detail below (driving diagnosis result, first diagnosis, second diagnosis, etc.).
“The Office rejected claim 2 under 35 U.S.C.§ 103 as being unpatentable over Kurian in view of Heck and in further view of Buergstein (US 2023/0382225). Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and recites additional features. The deficiencies of Kurian and Heck with respect to claim 1 were discussed above. Buergstein was not applied in a manner that attempted to make up for the above-identified deficiencies. Claim 2, therefore, distinguishes over the applied references for at least the same reasons as those discussed with respect to claim 1, and/or for the additionally recited features.
Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the applied references are respectfully requested.”, (Remarks, page 11)
Regarding point d, for at least the reasons outlined above regarding the rejection of independent claim 1, the rejection of dependent claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is maintained.
“Claims 9-12 depend from claim 4, recite additional features, and distinguish over the applied references for at least the same reasons as those discussed with respect to claim 4, and/or for the additionally recited features.
Accordingly, consideration and allowance of claims 9-12 are respectfully requested.”, (Remarks, page 11)
Regarding point e, applicant’s arguments have been considered but are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendment, outlined below.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 1 should read — the processor is configured to:—, with a colon added.
Claim 4 should read — wherein the processor is configured to:… the processor is further configured to: —, with colons added.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kurian (US 20190294773 A1) in view of Heck et al. (English translation of DE 102013000131 A1), henceforth known as Kurian and Heck, respectively.
Kurian and Heck were first cited in a previous office action.
Regarding claim 1, Kurian discloses:
A vehicle display device, comprising: (Kurian, FIG. 1A; FIG. 1B; Abstract)
a processor provided in a vehicle; and (Kurian, FIG. 1B)
a display, (Kurian, ¶[0043])
wherein the processor is configured to: (Kurian, FIG. 1B)
set a mode of the vehicle to one of a first mode and a second mode; (Kurian, FIG. 1A; FIG. 1B; FIG. 5; FIGs.10-12; ¶[0011]; ¶[0017]; ¶[0068]; ¶[0043]; ¶[0049]; ¶[0091]; Where the vehicle computing platform 110 activates a private mode for when the driver is alone and a public privacy mode for when there is a stranger in the vehicle)
acquire a [driving diagnosis result of the vehicle]; and (Kurian, FIG. 1A; FIG. 1B; ¶[0068]; ¶[0063]; ¶[0060]; Where vehicle computing platform 110 interfaces with other devices to acquire information relevant to the driver of the vehicle)
cause the display to display an image representing the [driving diagnosis result] in a first manner in response to the vehicle being in the first mode, (Kurian, FIG. 1A; FIG. 1B; ¶[0043]; ¶[0046]; ¶[0049]; ¶[0044]; Where the vehicle’s in-dash main screen displays all details of the driver’s information when in the private mode, i.e. the driver is alone)
and display the image representing the [driving diagnosis result] in a second manner that is more difficult for an occupant of the vehicle to recognize than in the first manner in response to the vehicle being in the second mode, (Kurian, FIG. 1A; FIG. 1B; ¶[0043]; ¶[0046]; ¶[0049]; ¶[0044]; ¶[0057]; ¶[0068]; Where the vehicle’s in-dash main screen obscures or partially hides the driver’s information when in the public privacy mode, i.e. there is a stranger in the vehicle)
[the image representing the driving diagnosis result in the first manner includes characters directly representing content of the driving diagnosis result, and
the image representing the driving diagnosis result in the second manner does not include a character].
Kurian is silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, Heck teaches:
acquire a driving diagnosis result of the vehicle; (Heck, FIG. 1; page 5, lines 14-21; page 3, lines 18-41; Page 6, lines 15-29; Where feedback system 1, implemented by an on-board processor and memory, performs an evaluation of the driver’s driving and acquires appropriate feedback)
cause the display to display an image representing the driving diagnosis result in a first manner…, (Heck, FIG. 1; FIG. 4; Page 6, lines 15-29; page 9, lines 10-17; Where the feedback system 1 uses vehicle display to display the driver feedback as a smiley and text OK)
and display the image representing the driving diagnosis result in a second manner... (Heck, FIG. 1; FIG. 4; Page 6, lines 15-29; page 9, lines 10-17; Where the feedback system 1 uses vehicle display to display the driver feedback as a sad face, without text)
the image representing the driving diagnosis result in the first manner includes characters directly representing content of the driving diagnosis result, and the image representing the driving diagnosis result in the second manner does not include a character. (Heck, FIG. 1; FIG. 4; Page 6, lines 15-29; page 9, lines 10-17; Where the feedback system 1 uses vehicle display to display the driver feedback as a smiley and text OK indicating a good driving result, and where the feedback system 1 uses vehicle display to display the driver feedback as a sad face, without text, indicating a poor driving result).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Kurian with the features taught by Heck because “One idea of the above feedback system is to continuously record and evaluate the current scenario 5 during the drive of the motor vehicle and to provide feedback to the driver on the basis of the assessment, for example to make his driving style a safe, considerate and / or can improve environmentally friendly driving” (Heck, page 3, lines 5-8). That is, the driver feedback system improves the driver’s driving.
Regarding claim 4, Kurian discloses:
A vehicle display device, comprising: (Kurian, FIG. 1A; FIG. 1B; Abstract)
a processor provided in a vehicle; and (Kurian, FIG. 1B)
a display, (Kurian, ¶[0043])
wherein the processor is configured to: (Kurian, FIG. 1B)
set a mode of the vehicle to one of a first mode and a second mode; (Kurian, FIG. 1A; FIG. 1B; FIG. 5; FIGs.10-12; ¶[0011]; ¶[0017]; ¶[0068]; ¶[0043]; ¶[0049]; ¶[0091]; Where the vehicle computing platform 110 activates a private mode for when the driver is alone and a public privacy mode for when there is a stranger in the vehicle)
acquire a [driving diagnosis result of the vehicle]; and (Kurian, FIG. 1A; FIG. 1B; ¶[0068]; ¶[0063]; ¶[0060]; Where vehicle computing platform 110 interfaces with other devices to acquire information relevant to the driver of the vehicle)
cause the display to display an image representing the [driving diagnosis result] in a first manner in response to the vehicle being in the first mode, (Kurian, FIG. 1A; FIG. 1B; ¶[0043]; ¶[0046]; ¶[0049]; ¶[0044]; Where the vehicle’s in-dash main screen displays all details of the driver’s information when in the private mode, i.e. the driver is alone)
and to display the image representing the [driving diagnosis result] in a second manner that is more difficult for an occupant of the vehicle to recognize than in the first manner in response to the vehicle being in the second mode, and (Kurian, FIG. 1A; FIG. 1B; ¶[0043]; ¶[0046]; ¶[0049]; ¶[0044]; ¶[0057]; ¶[0068]; Where the vehicle’s in-dash main screen obscures or partially hides the driver’s information when in the public privacy mode, i.e. there is a stranger in the vehicle)
the processor is further configured to: (Kurian, FIG. 1B)
classify the [driving diagnosis result] into a first [diagnosis result] or a second [diagnosis result] based on content of the [driving diagnosis result], and (Kurian, ¶[0084]; ¶[0126]; Claim 1; Where the vehicle determines whether the information to be displayed is a second kind of information that’s allowed to be displayed when another passenger is present or a first kind of information to be obscured in the presence of a second passenger based on the information content)
in response to the mode of the vehicle being set to the second mode, (Kurian, FIG. 1A; FIG. 1B; ¶[0043]; ¶[0046]; ¶[0049]; ¶[0044]; ¶[0057]; ¶[0068]; Where the vehicle’s in-dash main screen obscures or partially hides the driver’s information when in the public privacy mode, i.e. there is a stranger in the vehicle)
cause the display to display the [image representing the second diagnosis result] in the second manner, and (Kurian, ¶[0084]; ¶[0126]; Claim 1; Where the vehicle’s in-dash main screen obscures the first information type when a passenger is present)
cause the display to display the [image representing the first diagnosis result] in the first manner. (Kurian, ¶[0084]; ¶[0126]; Claim 1; Where the vehicle’s in-dash main screen displays the second information type when a passenger is present).
Kurian is silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, Heck teaches:
acquire a driving diagnosis result of the vehicle; (Heck, FIG. 1; page 5, lines 14-21; page 3, lines 18-41; Page 6, lines 15-29; Where feedback system 1, implemented by an on-board processor and memory, performs an evaluation of the driver’s driving and acquires appropriate feedback)
cause the display to display an image representing the driving diagnosis result in a first manner…, (Heck, FIG. 1; FIG. 4; Page 6, lines 15-29; page 9, lines 10-17; Where the feedback system 1 uses vehicle display to display the driver feedback as a smiley and text OK)
and to display the image representing the driving diagnosis result in a second manner... (Heck, FIG. 1; FIG. 4; Page 6, lines 15-29; page 9, lines 10-17; Where the feedback system 1 uses vehicle display to display the driver feedback as a sad face, without text)
classify the driving diagnosis result into a first diagnosis result or a second diagnosis result based on content of the driving diagnosis result, and (Heck, FIG. 1; page 5, lines 14-21; page 3, lines 9-13, 18-41; Page 6, lines 15-29; page 8, limes 40-44; Where feedback system 1, implemented by an on-board processor and memory, performs an evaluation of the driver’s driving as either positive feedback or negative feedback)
cause the display to display the image representing the second diagnosis result in the second manner, and cause the display to display the image representing the first diagnosis result in the first manner. (Heck, FIG. 1; FIG. 4; Page 6, lines 15-29; page 9, lines 10-17; Where the feedback system 1 uses vehicle display to display the driver feedback as a sad face, without text, indicating a poor driving result, i.e. the second manner, and where the feedback system 1 uses vehicle display to display the driver feedback as a smiley and text OK indicating a good driving result, i.e. the first manner).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Kurian with the features taught by Heck because “One idea of the above feedback system is to continuously record and evaluate the current scenario 5 during the drive of the motor vehicle and to provide feedback to the driver on the basis of the assessment, for example to make his driving style a safe, considerate and / or can improve environmentally friendly driving” (Heck, page 3, lines 5-8). That is, the driver feedback system improves the driver’s driving.
Regarding claim 5, Kurian and Heck teach the vehicle display device according to claim 1. Kurian further discloses and Heck further teaches:
wherein the display is provided on an instrument panel provided in front of a driver's seat of the vehicle. (Kurian, ¶[0046]; ¶[0049]; see in-dash and main screen). (Heck, FIG. 4; page 3, lines 14-16).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Kurian with the features taught by Heck for at least the same reasons outlined in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Kurian and Heck teach the vehicle display device according to claim 1. Kurian further discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether there is a general occupant other than a driver in the vehicle based on information from a sensor provided in the vehicle, and (Kurian, FIG. 1A; FIG. 1B; Abstract; ¶[0068]-¶[0070]; ¶[0075]; Where the vehicle computing platform 110 onboard the vehicle determines whether there is a passenger other than the driver in the vehicle based on sensor data from sensors in the vehicle)
wherein the processor is configured to set the mode of the vehicle to the second mode in response to determining that there is the general occupant. (Kurian, ¶[0046]; ¶[0049]; ¶[0068]; Where the vehicle computing platform 110 activates the public privacy mode when the vehicle computing platform 110 determines that there is a stranger in the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Kurian with the features taught by Heck for at least the same reasons outlined in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Kurian and Heck teach the vehicle display device according to claim 1. Kurian further discloses and Heck further teaches:
A vehicle display system, comprising:
the vehicle display device according to claim 1,
(Kurian, ¶[0046]) and (Heck, FIG. 4; page 3, lines 15-31)
wherein the processor if further configured to execute driving diagnosis of the vehicle and generate the driving diagnosis result. (Heck, FIG. 1; page 3, lines 15-31; Where the feedback system 1 evaluates the driver’s driving to generate feedback).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Kurian with the features taught by Heck for at least the same reasons outlined in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the claim limitations recite a method having limitations similar to those of claim 1 and is therefore rejected on the same basis, as outlined above.
Regarding claim 9, Kurian and Heck teach the vehicle display device according to claim 4. Heck further teaches:
wherein the image representing the driving diagnosis result in the first manner includes characters directly representing content of the driving diagnosis result, and the image representing the driving diagnosis result in the second manner does not include a character. (Heck, FIG. 1; FIG. 4; Page 6, lines 15-29; page 9, lines 10-17; Where the feedback system 1 uses vehicle display to display the driver feedback as a smiley and text OK indicating a good driving result, and where the feedback system 1 uses vehicle display to display the driver feedback as a sad face, without text, indicating a poor driving result).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Kurian with the features taught by Heck for at least the same reasons outlined in claim 4.
Claims 2 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kurian and Heck, as applied to claim 1, above, and in further view of Buergstein (US 20230382225 A1), henceforth known as Buergstein.
Kurian, Heck, and Buergstein were first cited in a previous office action.
Regarding claim 2, Kurian and Heck teach the vehicle display device according to claim 1. Heck teaches the image representing the driving diagnosis result, as outlined above in claim 1 (Heck, FIG. 1; FIG. 4; Page 6, lines 15-29; page 9, lines 10-17). Kurian and Heck are silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, Buergstein teaches:
wherein at least one of brightness or saturation of the image… in the second manner is lower than the at least one of the brightness or the saturation of the image… in the first manner. (Buergstein, FIGs. 1-2; ¶[0017]-¶[0018]; ¶[0024]; ¶[0029]; Where the brightness of the displayed image on the vehicle’s display is lower for the a privacy mode than the brightness of the image without the privacy mode; for clarity, Buergstein teaches lowering the brightness for both the driver and passenger in ¶[0029]; further, instances where the brightness is only lowered for the driver do not teach away from the claimed invention as the intention is to lower visibility for one party and not the other- a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would understand that the application of reducing brightness in a display would be for the party that is intended to be excluded from the information, as directed by the invention of Kurian where visibility to a stranger , i.e. passenger that is not the driver, is limited).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Kurian and Heck with the features taught by Buergstein because the features taught by Buergstein “…locally adjusts the display view in selected regions to specifically worsen or disrupt the visibility of content that is potentially distracting to a driver of a vehicle (e.g. exciting moving images) based on an evaluation of the content in the regions. The method can be used to provide a privacy mode or can additionally be carried out on the display unit in an already enabled privacy mode that is based on the know methods described above.” (Buergstein, ¶[0010]).
Regarding claim 10, Kurian and Heck teach the vehicle display device according to claim 9. Heck teaches the image representing the driving diagnosis result, as outlined above in claim 9 (Heck, FIG. 1; FIG. 4; Page 6, lines 15-29; page 9, lines 10-17). Kurian and Heck are silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, Buergstein teaches:
wherein at least one of brightness or saturation of the image… in the second manner is lower than the at least one of the brightness or the saturation of the image… in the first manner. (Buergstein, FIGs. 1-2; ¶[0017]-¶[0018]; ¶[0024]; ¶[0029]; Where the brightness of the displayed image on the vehicle’s display is lower for the a privacy mode than the brightness of the image without the privacy mode; for clarity, Buergstein teaches lowering the brightness for both the driver and passenger in ¶[0029]; further, instances where the brightness is only lowered for the driver do not teach away from the claimed invention as the intention is to lower visibility for one party and not the other- a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would understand that the application of reducing brightness in a display would be for the party that is intended to be excluded from the information, as directed by the invention of Kurian where visibility to a stranger , i.e. passenger that is not the driver, is limited).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Kurian and Heck with the features taught by Buergstein because the features taught by Buergstein “…locally adjusts the display view in selected regions to specifically worsen or disrupt the visibility of content that is potentially distracting to a driver of a vehicle (e.g. exciting moving images) based on an evaluation of the content in the regions. The method can be used to provide a privacy mode or can additionally be carried out on the display unit in an already enabled privacy mode that is based on the know methods described above.” (Buergstein, ¶[0010]).
Regarding claim 11, Kurian, Heck, and Briggs teach the vehicle display device according to claim 10. Kurian further discloses and Heck further teaches:
wherein the display is provided on an instrument panel provided in front of a driver's seat of the vehicle. (Kurian, ¶[0046]; ¶[0049]; see in-dash and main screen). (Heck, FIG. 4; page 3, lines 14-16).
Regarding claim 12, Kurian, Heck, and Briggs teach the vehicle display device according to claim 11. Kurian further discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to determine whether there is a general occupant other than a driver in the vehicle based on information from a sensor provided in the vehicle, and (Kurian, FIG. 1A; FIG. 1B; Abstract; ¶[0068]-¶[0070]; ¶[0075]; Where the vehicle computing platform 110 onboard the vehicle determines whether there is a passenger other than the driver in the vehicle based on sensor data from sensors in the vehicle)
wherein the processor is configured to set the mode of the vehicle to the second mode in response to determining that there is the general occupant.
(Kurian, ¶[0046]; ¶[0049]; ¶[0068]; Where the vehicle computing platform 110 activates the public privacy mode when the vehicle computing platform 110 determines that there is a stranger in the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Kurian with the features taught by Heck for at least the same reasons outlined in claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Briggs et al. (US 9177427 B1) discloses an in-vehicle feedback system, and more particularly, to an in-vehicle device with a display or graphical interface that collects driving data and provides feedback based on the driving data. The system may comprise an in-vehicle device that includes a graphical user interface and a processor and a data collection device wirelessly connected to the in-vehicle device. The in-vehicle device may be configured to receive vehicle telematics data from the data collection device and the processor may process the telematics data in real time and cause the telematics data to be displayed on the graphical user interface. The graphical user interface may include a speed display and an acceleration display. The display is either a bar graph with values or a bobble-head.
McQuillen et al. (US 20190152386 A1) discloses methods and apparatus for suggestion of under-utilized features. A vehicle comprises sensors, a processor, and a display interface. The processor is in communication with the sensors and is to: receive inputs from the sensors, select one of multiple driving situations using the inputs, select a convenience feature corresponding to the selected driving situation, determine usage of the convenience feature using the inputs, and generate a message regarding use of the convenience feature. The display interface is in communication with the processor and is to display the message.
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 Tawri M McAndrews whose telephone number is (571)272-3715. The examiner can normally be reached M-W (0800-1000).
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, James Lee can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.
/T.M.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668