DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Applicant submitted remarks in response to the latest Office action on 16 March 2026. Therein, Applicant amended claims 1 and 16; Applicant cancelled claims 4, 13 and 17-19. No claims were newly added. The submitted claims have been entered and are considered below.
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 Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and related arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first asserts that the prior art of record does not disclose a “first switch”. Specifically, Applicant asserts that the movement of the switch “has nothing to do with the movement of the sliding member”. Examiner does not agree.
Examiner notes that the claim limitation is “a first switch disposed in a movement region of the first sliding member”. The teaching of the sliding members put the switch in the “movement region”. That is, the switch moves as the sliding member moves. Accordingly, the switch of Yamazaki teaches the claimed limitation.
Additionally, the connection of the switch and the conveyance of electricity is interpreted to be the detecting of the attachment of the display device. If Applicant is asserting that the switch of Yamazaki does not actively compute or electronically process data to make a determination, Examiner is unable to find any information in Applicant’s specification that would allow for such an ability in the claimed switches because Applicant’s switches fail to possess any circuitry or processing power. Accordingly, conveyance of electricity by the switch in Yamazaki is enough to read on a switch that detects “the display device is attached” to the mount. The prior art teaching is maintained for the updated rejection.
Applicant asserts that the cited prior art of record does not disclose the claimed invention of claim 16. Specifically, Applicant argues that the prior art of record only refers to mechanical/physical engagements without a wireless connection and does not determine interlocking with the vehicle. Applicant argues that the general citation of a wireless communication module fails to teach the feature at issue. Examiner does not agree.
The teaching of Ricci discloses that “the device 100 may communicate with, and/or be operated independently of, the additional console display 108. Communication between the device 100 and the additional console display 108 may be achieved through physical and/or wireless methods.” (see para. 0054). Ricci further specifies that the device may be connected to the vehicle “through the docking port 244 via a physical, inductive, and/or wireless association” (see para. 0063). Based on the inclusion of a wireless connection by Ricci, the teachings of determining an interlock with the vehicle (see paras. 0108-0109) would be performed via a wireless connection (see para. 0063, connection/interlock) and recited processor. The rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ricci (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0245882).
For claim 16, Ricci teaches a method of interlocking a display device with a vehicle, the method comprising: determining whether the display device is attached to or detached from a display device interlocking device disposed in the vehicle (see paras. 0108-0109, 0063); determining an interlocking state of the display device (see para. 0054, connection established with vehicle; para. 0011, 0058; para. 0108); in response to a determination that the display device is attached, determining an interlocking state of the display device that indicates whether the display device is logically interlocked with a processor of the vehicle (see para. 0054, connection established with vehicle; para. 0011, 0058; para. 0108); in response to a determination that the display device is detached (see paras. 0062, 0108), establishing a wireless connection between the vehicle and the display (see paras. 0054, 0063), and determining the interlocking state of the display device with the processor of the vehicle (see para. 0054, connection established with vehicle, wireless connection implied via other cited teachings; para. 0011, 0058; para. 0108); and controlling the vehicle in response to the determination whether the display device is attached or detached and the interlocking state of the display device (see paras. 0011, 0014, 0053, 0063, 0089).
With reference to claim 20, Ricci further discloses wherein the determining the interlocking state of the display device comprises: outputting the interlocking state to an output module of the vehicle or an output module of the display device (see para. 0063).
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 1-3, 5-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0100103).
For claim 1, Yamazaki discloses a device for interlocking a display device with a vehicle, the device comprising: a mount disposed in the vehicle (see Fig. 2, #7. Fig. 14, #19, Fig. 15, #20, Fig. 16, #44), a first sliding member disposed on a front surface of the mount and capable of moving forward or backward in a direction perpendicular to a rear surface of the display device (see Fig. 14, 19, #23, Fig. 15, #20,); and a connector provided to the first sliding member, wherein the connector transmits and receives electrical signals to and from the display device (see Fig. 15, #31 and related text), wherein the mount comprises: a second sliding member disposed to move the first sliding member (see Figs. 14 and 15, see difference of #24; it moves #23), a first switch disposed in a movement region of the first sliding member (see Fig. 18, #34); wherein the first switch detect whether the display device is attached to or detached from the mount (see paras. 0054, 0056, 0060, switch 34 determines connection between main body 4 and display 5).
Yamazaki does not explicitly disclose a second switch. It would have been obvious in light of element duplication to modify the second sliding member to have a second switch to detect attachment based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to bring about improvement in the degree of freedom as to the size and shape of an information reproduction apparatus (see para. 0002).
Referring to claim 2, Yamazaki further discloses a display module disposed on a front surface thereof and configured to output an image (see Fig. 1); and a linkage disposed on a rear surface of the display module and connected to the connector (see Fig. 16, #41).
Regarding claim 3, Yamazaki does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. A connector for cables or other similar RF and AV connections are considered well known to one of ordinary skill in the art. In view of Official Notice, it would have been obvious to modify the connection type to a connection for cables based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to bring about improvement in the degree of freedom as to the size and shape of an information reproduction apparatus (see para. 0002).
With reference to claim 5, Yamazaki does not explicitly disclose both sliding members having racks and pinions. However, Yamazaki teaches the second sliding member having a rack and pinion interface (see Fig. 4, #16, 17) to move the second sliding member in an opposite direction from the first sliding member. It would have been obvious in light of element duplication to modify the first sliding member to have a rack and pinion gear to move the first sliding member in its designed direction based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to bring about improvement in the degree of freedom as to the size and shape of an information reproduction apparatus (see para. 0002).
Regarding claim 6, Yamazaki further teaches wherein the second sliding member comprises: a first elastic member arranged to exert an elastic force when the display device is attached to and detached from the mount (see paras. 0032, 0043, “holding” implicit of elastic force; see also Fig. 4, #9, 10).
With reference to claim 7, Yamazaki further wherein the display device comprises: a coupling part disposed on a rear surface thereof (see Fig. 16, #43, unlabeled in Fig. 15), wherein the coupling part comprises a first fastener having a first engagement protrusion (see Fig. 16, #43, unlabeled in Fig. 15, first metal extension), wherein the first fastener comprises a second fastener disposed on a side of the second sliding member and having a second engagement protrusion (see Fig. 16, #43, unlabeled in Fig. 15, second metal extension).
Referring to claim 8, Yamazaki further teaches wherein the first fastener comprises: a seating groove, the second engagement protrusion being seated in the seating groove (see Fig. 4, see para. 0032, vertical slide rails).
With regards to claim 9, Yamazaki further discloses wherein the coupling part seating groove comprises: a rotating arm configured to move the first fastener in a horizontal direction along the same plane as the rear surface of the display device (see Fig. 9, #18, Figs. 13, 14, unlabeled arrow graphic showing horizontal direction).
With reference to claim 10, Yamazaki further discloses wherein the coupling part comprises: a third sliding member disposed to move in a vertical direction parallel to the rear surface of the display device (see Fig. 6, #12), wherein the third sliding member is coupled to the rotating arm to rotate the rotating arm (see Fig. 9, #18).
Regarding claim 11, Yamazaki further teaches wherein the first fastener comprises: a second elastic member arranged to exert an elastic force upon rotation of the rotating arm (see Fig. 9, #18, opposing side; see para. 0040, to maintain position of display, elastic force is necessary).
Referring to claim 14, Yamazaki further discloses wherein the mount comprises: a tilting part arranged to rotate the mount about an axis line oriented in a horizontal direction (see Fig. 9).
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0100103), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Malone, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,663,155).
For claim 12, Yamazaki does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. A teaching from Malone discloses a handle hole formed to expose the handle to and outside and secure a movement region for the handle (see Fig. 15, #102). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Yamazaki to include the teaching of Malone based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve a video display unit that can be extended from the interior of the console and positioned in a variety of orientations for viewing by passengers residing in the vehicle interior (see col. 1:16-18).
Referring to claim 15, Malone further teaches wherein the mount comprises: a sliding cover arranged to open and close a front of the mount (see Figs. 9-11).
Conclusion
As previously stated, Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has been cited. This includes any teachings within the reference that were not explicitly cited in the previous Office action. Therefore, any previously cited figures, columns and lines should not be considered the only relevant teachings. Any new citation of additional teachings of the previously cited art is not a new ground of rejection. Taking the references as a whole, the art supports the rejection of the claims and the rejection is maintained.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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. v
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights