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 office action is in response to Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 09/24/2025, for application number 18/391,424 filed on 12/20/2023, in which claims 1-20 were originally presented for examination.
Claims 1, 2, and 13 are amended.
Claim 20 is canceled.
Claims 1-19 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 09/24/2025 in response to the Non-Final office action mailed on 07/23/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 103: With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant has amended the independent claims and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application. Therefore, the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant’s arguments are made based on the Applicant’s promotional video at the 2024 CES exhibition (see Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 09/24/2025 at pg. 14-15).
Anything outside of the original disclosure that is not supported in the original disclosure is regarded as new matter (see MPEP § 608.04).
Therefore, no weight is given to the arguments and amendments associated with the Applicant’s promotional video at the 2024 CES exhibition (see Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 09/24/2025 at pg. 14-15), which is new matter.
Regrading claim 13, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The non-final office action mailed on 07/23/2025 does not rely on Bond et al. for the limitation “a transparent display disposed in the see-through window of the cockpit” of claim 13, but rely on Kweon et al. instead.
Further, Bond et al. discloses TWD system 20 including transparent phosphors embedded into the windscreen 24 in paragraph [0050]. Therefore, Bond et al. discloses “a transparent display disposed in the see-through window of the cockpit” of claim 13.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments stating that “Bond fails to disclose the feature ‘the transparent display, disposed in the see-through window of the cockpit’” (Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 09/24/2025 at pg. 16) is not persuasive.
FINAL OFFICE ACTION
Drawings
The new drawings including FIG. 12A and 12B are objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because they introduce new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
The added material is not supported by the original disclosure because the original disclosure in the specification does not provide enough details to the shape, size, and/or numbers of slits to provide the slits (i.e., SLT) as shown in FIG. 12A and 12B and how the slits would deform. The only relevant description includes “the decorative layer 55 of the steering wheel 50 may be provided with a plurality of slits in a portion overlapping the display surface 110ds of the touch display 110. These slits are in a closed state when the touch display 110 is not deformed nor raised, but the slits form larger openings when the touch display 110 is deformed and raised, so that an image frame of the touch display 110 under the decorative layer 55 can be clearly displayed” (para. [0029] of the specification as originally filed). However, the new drawings show slits that are lined up at even intervals in FIG. 12A and deform into evenly spaced apart slits FIG. 12B, and such details are not disclosed in the specification as originally filed and are not inherent characteristics. Therefore, the details provided in the new drawings raise a doubt as to the possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Therefore, the specification as originally filed does not provide support for the new matter of the new drawings including FIG. 12A and 12B.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Specification
The amendment filed 09/24/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
The added material regarding paragraphs [0020-1] and [0029] which are amended to incorporate the descriptions regarding the new drawings including FIG. 12A and 12B is not supported by the original disclosure. The new drawings including FIG. 12A and 12B are new matter as indicated in Drawings section of this office action. Therefore, paragraph [0020-1] and [0029] are objected.
Further, the added material regarding paragraphs [0006], [0029], [0049], and [0052] which are amended to replace the word “frame” with “screen” is not supported by the original disclosure.
First, the meaning of “frame” is “an enclosing border”, “the matter or area enclosed in such a border” (see “Frame.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/frame. Accessed 24 Oct. 2025.). Whereas the meaning of “screen” is “a flat surface on which a picture or series of pictures is projected or reflected” (see “Screen.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/screen. Accessed 24 Oct. 2025.). Therefore, each of the words “frame” and “screen” has distinctive meaning that the words are not simply interchangeable.
Second, Applicant alleges that claim 11 and paragraphs [0050] and [0053] support the added material (see Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 09/24/2025 at pg. 11). However, the specification consistently uses “frame” in describing images or contents to be displayed. On the other hand, the specification consistently uses “screen” in describing the physical screen or display. Therefore, the specification as originally filed does not suggest that the words “frame” and “screen” are interchangeable.
Third, claim 11 recites “to display an image screen in a tiled manner” but the recitation does not support the added material because the physical screens (i.e., head-up displays 121, 122, 123) may be interpreted as “image screen” which is displayed in a tiled manner as shown in FIG. 8 as described in claim 11 and paragraph [0050].
Finally, paragraph [0053] is irrelevant and does not support the added material because “the image screen IM” in paragraph [0053] is on touch display 110 of steering wheel 50. The added material concerns the head-up displays 121, 122, 123.
Therefore, Applicant’s allegation is not persuasive, and the added material regarding paragraphs [0006], [0029], [0049], and [0052] which are amended to replace the word “frame” with “screen” is not supported by the original disclosure. As such, paragraphs [0006], [0029], [0049], and [0052] are objected.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the decorative layer conceals the display surface of the touch display when the touch display is inactivated” in lines 5-6. However, the specification is silent as to the status of decorative layer when the touch display is inactivated. Nothing indicates that the status of the decorative layer is associated with the activation status of the touch display in any way in the specification as originally filed.
It is noted that anything outside of the original disclosure that is not supported in the original disclosure is regarded as new matter (see MPEP § 608.04). It is noted that the Applicant’s promotional video at the 2024 CES exhibition (see Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 09/24/2025 at pg. 14-15) is regarded as new matter.
Therefore, claim 1 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art.
Claims 2-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim(s) and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemcke et al. (US 2021/0349592 A1) in view of Xu et al. (CN 215706601 U) further in view of Kim (KR 20100050089 A). The rejections below are based on the machine translation of the Xu et al. and Kim, copies of which are attached to the previous Office Action as also indicated in the 892 form.
Regarding claim 1, Lemcke et al. discloses a cockpit display system adapted to be installed in a cockpit (Lemcke et al. at FIG. 1a and para. [0042]: “the cockpit features a human machine interface 30 that comprises several touch-sensitive surfaces 32, a control unit 34 and several output screens 36”), comprising:
a touch display disposed in a steering wheel in the cockpit and adapted to display image information (Lemcke et al. at para. [0049]: “An additional touch-sensitive surface 32 is provided on the steering wheel 12”),
at least one head-up display adapted for display on a see-through window of the cockpit (Lemcke et al. at FIG. 1a and para. [0044]: “a screen of a head-up display 38 (HUD) also serves as an output screen 36); and
a control unit electrically connected to the touch display and the at least one head-up display (Lemcke et al. at para. [0043]: “The control unit 34 is connected to the output screens 36 and the touch-sensitive surfaces 32 by information technology”), wherein the control unit is adapted to display the image information on at least one of the touch display and the at least one head-up display according to a touch action performed on the touch display (Lemcke et al. at para. [0055]: “The screen and the touch-sensitive surfaces 32 form together a touch-sensitive touch display, such as is well-known from smartphones or tablets”),
However, Lemcke et al. does not explicitly state wherein a decorative layer of the steering wheel covers a display surface of the touch display, and the decorative layer conceals the display surface of the touch display when the touch display is inactivated,
when the touch display is touched, the display surface of the touch display is adapted to be deformed and raised toward the decorative layer of the steering wheel, and the image information displayed on the touch display is visible through the deformed decorative layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Xu et al. teaches wherein a decorative layer of the steering wheel covers a display surface of the touch display, and the decorative layer conceals the display surface of the touch display when the touch display is inactivated (Xu et al. at FIGS. 1-2 and pg. 3, ln. 38-40: “As shown in FIG. 2 , in the steering wheel 10 of the embodiment of the present invention, the touch screen assembly 100 includes a top cover 110 and a display 120 , and the top cover 110 is used to cover the display 120 to protect the display 120”; pg. 3, ln. 49-51: “the top cover 110 of the touch screen assembly 100 is configured to include a top cover body 1102 and a cover film 1101 covering the top surface of the top cover body 1102”; pg. 4, ln. 37-38: “the bottom layer 1101C includes a top cover body 1102 (a transparent part, so that the content of the display screen can be seen)”; The top cover 110 covers the display 120 at all time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lemcke et al. by adding the decorative layer of Xu et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the system of Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. is to improve appearance and hand feeling of the touch display.
However, Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. does not explicitly state when the touch display is touched, the display surface of the touch display is adapted to be deformed and raised toward the decorative layer of the steering wheel, and the image information displayed on the touch display is visible through the deformed decorative layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches when the touch display is touched, the display surface of the touch display is adapted to be deformed and raised toward the decorative layer of the steering wheel, and the image information displayed on the touch display is visible through the deformed decorative layer (Kim at pg. 1, ln. 11-12: “The user touch feedback method according to an embodiment of the present invention includes: detecting a touch point of a user; Elevating the touch point; pg. 2, ln. 12-14: “The magnet unit 123 and the sensor unit 111 may be disposed on a touch pad of the mobile terminal and may be used as a touch screen when the magnet unit 123 and the sensor unit 111 are transparent 3”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system including the decorative layer of the steering wheel of Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. by adding the touch display that is adapted to be deformed and raised as taught by Kim with a reasonable expectation of success.
For example, when the system including the decorative layer of the steering wheel of Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. is modified to include the touch display that is adapted to be deformed and raised of Kim under the decorative layer, it is obvious to one skilled in the art that the display surface of the touch display deformed and raised toward the decorative layer of the steering wheel, and it is also obvious that the image information displayed on the touch display is visible through the deformed decorative layer because the decorative layer of Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. is transparent.
The motivation to modify the system of Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim is to provide touch feedback for intuitive use of the touch display.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim and Ligtenberg et al. (US 2018/0217668 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim teaches the cockpit display system according to claim 1.
However, Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim does not explicitly states wherein the decorative layer is provided with a plurality of slits in a portion overlapping the display surface of the touch display.
In the same field of endeavor, Ligtenberg et al. teaches wherein the decorative layer is provided with a plurality of slits in a portion overlapping the display surface of the touch display (Ligtenberg et al. at para. [0122]: “The integrated interface system may also provide various types of output functionality, including visual outputs, haptic outputs, and the like. For example, images of affordances (e.g., keys, keyboards, buttons, sliders, dials, etc.) may be displayed on the top case (e.g., with a display device) to indicate where a touch or force input may be provided”; para. [0449]: “An opening or slit 2944 may be formed in the contact surface 2940 to define a beam 2942 (or other cantilevered or flexible member). As shown in FIG. 29K, an actuator strip 2950 (which may be similar to the actuator strips 2909c, 2909d, above, and may be formed from or include a piezoelectric material) may be coupled to the contact surface 2940 via a force spreading layer 2948 (which may be the same as or similar to the force spreading layers 2909c, 2909d, above). When the actuator strip 2950 is actuated, it may cause the beam 2942 to deflect upwards (as shown) or downwards to produce a localized deformation that can be detected by a user (e.g., by a user's finger)” “In some cases, such as where no cover 2946 is used, the slit 2944 is sufficiently small to substantially prevent contaminants from entering the device absent additional external forces, pressures, or the like”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim by adding the slits as taught by Ligtenberg et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the system of Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim and Ligtenberg et al. is to provide a deformable surface that can be raised to provide tactile feedback.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim and NPL-1 (“LuminAR + Swyp Demo.” Vimeo, uploaded by Fluid Interfaces, 1 May 2012, https://vimeo.com/41393146).
Regarding claim 3, Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim teaches the cockpit display system according to claim 1.
Lemcke et al. further discloses (Lemcke et al. at para. [0075]: “All these functions are displayed on the output screen 36 by symbols. In this regard, the order of displayed functions, thus the symbols, corresponds to the order of the fingers on the touch-sensitive surface 32”).
However, Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim does not explicitly state wherein when the touch action is sliding in a direction of the at least one head-up display.
Nevertheless, Lemcke et al. at least suggests the idea of displaying the symbols associated with certain functions on the touch display and the HUD when fingers are placed on the touch display (Lemcke et al. at FIG. 2 and para. [0067] and [0075]-[0076]).
In the same field of endeavor, NPL-1 teaches wherein when the touch action is sliding in a direction of the at least one head-up display (NPL-1 discloses transferring image data from a first screen to a second screen by sliding the image data displayed on the first screen toward the direction of the second screen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim by adding the touch action as taught by NPL-1 with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the system of Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim and NPL-1 is to provide intuitive transfer of image data.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim, NPL-1, and Rush et al. (US 2020/0218487 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim and NPL-1 teaches the cockpit display system according to claim 3.
However, Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim and NPL-1 does not explicitly state wherein when the touch action is sliding in a direction away from the at least one head-up display, the control unit turns off the display of the image information on the at least one head-up display.
In the same field of endeavor, Rush et al. teaches wherein when the touch action is sliding in a direction away from the at least one head-up display, the control unit turns off the display of the image information on the at least one head-up display (Rush et al. at para. [0097]: “a control display can be in a smart mode, which allows a user to tum on and turn off a quick access menu by swiping down or swiping up using a hand or finger gesture. For example, a user can swipe down at a predetermined distance across the control display ( either control display A 805 or control display B 807) using a three-finger gesture. The quick access menu can be a list of predetermined applications displayed the dashboard screen 222”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim and NPL-1 by adding the touch action as taught by Rush et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the system of Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim, NPL-1, and Rush et al. is to provide intuitive operation system.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim and Langlois et al. (US 2011/0201388 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim teaches the cockpit display system according to claim 1.
Lemcke et al. further discloses wherein the image information comprises a functional menu having a plurality of icons (Lemcke et al. at para. [0070]: “This function is displayed in the output screen 36, for example as a symbol or icon”), the control unit is also adapted to switch and display the icons of the functional menu according to another touch action performed on the touch display (Lemcke et al. at FIG. 4 and para. [0083]: “After the user has placed his hand on the touch sensitive surface 32 and the appropriate buttons 48 have been assigned along with the functions by the control unit 32 (FIGS. 2d and 3d), the user can now select the desired functions. This is shown in FIGS. 4a to 4c”; para. [0084]: “he has to initially access the menu for controlling the air conditioning system that can be reached through the "air conditioning system"”; para. [0090]: “The functions of the buttons 48.2 to 48.5 that are assigned to the index, middle, ring and little fingers, have now changed and are now "temperature setting", "fan settings", "rear window heating" and "recirculating air". Consequently, the symbols in the output screen 36 and if necessary the symbols on the optical element 40 have also changed”), and
However, Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim does not explicitly state the another touch action comprises sliding in an arrangement direction of the icons.
In the same field of endeavor, Langlois et al. teaches the another touch action comprises sliding in an arrangement direction of the icons (Langlois et al. at para. [0026]: “a user can brush a finger from left to right over the touch screen, and a corresponding left-to-right motion can appear in the carousel 113, thereby allowing a user to view icons the icons adjacent to the currently focused icon 114”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim by adding the another touch action as taught by Langlois et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the system of Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim and Langlois et al. is to provide efficient management of multiple icons.
Regarding claim 6, Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim and Langlois et al. teaches the cockpit display system according to claim 5.
Langlois et al. further teaches wherein the switching and displaying of the icons comprise enlarging a size of a focused one among the icons and maintaining or reducing the sizes of the remaining icons (Langlois et al. at FIG. 2 and para. [0029]: “The highlighted icon 200 can be scaled to increase in size, from the first configuration to a second configuration, to display the highlighted icon 200 more prominently as described above”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim and Langlois et al. by enlarging the size of the focused on among the icons as taught by Langlois et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the system of Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim and Langlois et al. is to provide visual cues for enhancing the user experience.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim, Langlois et al., and NPL-1.
Regarding claim 7, Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim and Langlois et al. teaches the cockpit display system according to claim 5.
Lemcke et al. further discloses wherein the control unit is adapted to display a functional screen of the selected one among the icons on the at least one head-up display according to the touch action (Lemcke et al. at para. [0075]: “All these functions are displayed on the output screen 36 by symbols. In this regard, the order of displayed functions, thus the symbols, corresponds to the order of the fingers on the touch-sensitive surface 32”), and
However, Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim and Langlois et al. does not explicitly state the touch action comprises sliding in a direction of the at least one head-up display.
Nevertheless, Lemcke et al. at least suggests the idea of displaying the symbols associated with certain functions on the touch display and the HUD when fingers are placed on the touch display (Lemcke et al. at FIG. 2 and para. [0067] and [0075]-[0076]).
In the same field of endeavor, NPL-1 teaches the touch action comprises sliding in a direction of the at least one head-up display (NPL-1 discloses transferring image data from a first screen to a second screen by sliding the image data displayed on the first screen toward the direction of the second screen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim and Langlois et al. by adding the touch action as taught by NPL-1 with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the system of Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim, Langlois et al., and NPL-1 is to provide intuitive transfer of image data.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim, Langlois et al., NPL-1 , and Rush et al.
Regarding claim 8, Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim, Langlois et al., and NPL-1 teaches the cockpit display system according to claim 7.
However, Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim, Langlois et al., and NPL-1 does not explicitly state wherein the touch action further comprises sliding in a direction away from the at least one head-up display.
In the same field of endeavor, Rush et al. teaches wherein the touch action further comprises sliding in a direction away from the at least one head-up display (Rush et al. at para. [0097]: “a control display can be in a smart mode, which allows a user to tum on and turn off a quick access menu by swiping down or swiping up using a hand or finger gesture. For example, a user can swipe down at a predetermined distance across the control display ( either control display A 805 or control display B 807) using a three-finger gesture. The quick access menu can be a list of predetermined applications displayed the dashboard screen 222”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim, Langlois et al., and NPL-1 by adding the touch action as taught by Rush et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the system of Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim, Langlois et al., NPL-1, and Rush et al. is to provide intuitive operation system.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim and Bond et al. (US 2024/0029559 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim teaches the cockpit display system according to claim 1.
However, Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim does not explicitly state further comprising: a transparent display disposed in the see-through window of the cockpit and overlapping the at least one head-up display, wherein the image information is also adapted to be displayed on the transparent display.
In the same field of endeavor, Bond et al. teaches further comprising: a transparent display disposed in the see-through window of the cockpit and overlapping the at least one head-up display, wherein the image information is also adapted to be displayed on the transparent display (Bond et al. at para. [0038]: “The system 10 generally includes a controller 14, vehicle sensors 16, an augmented reality head-up display (AR-HUD) system 18, a transparent windscreen display (TWD) system 20, and a human-machine interface (HMI) 22”; para. [0050]: “the AR-HUD system 18 can display the AR HUD graphics 40 in a predefined region of the windscreen 24 (e.g., in the first image plane 58 and the second image plane 60). The TWD system 20 can display TWD graphics (not shown) in any region of the windscreen 24. Therefore, by operating the AR-HUD system 18 and the TWD system 20 in conjunction, the controller 14 may display graphics in any region of the windscreen 24”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim by adding the transparent display of Bond et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the system of Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim and Bond et al. is to provide efficient display of images for drivers.
Regarding claim 12, Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim and Bond et al. teaches the cockpit display system according to claim 9.
Bond et al. further teaches wherein an imaging depth of the head-up display is different from an imaging depth of the transparent display (Bond et al. at para. [0038]: “The system 10 generally includes a controller 14, vehicle sensors 16, an augmented reality head-up display (AR-HUD) system 18, a transparent windscreen display (TWD) system 20, and a human-machine interface (HMI) 22”; para. [0049]: “the AR-HUD system 18 has a first image plane 58 and a second image plane 60. The first image plane 58 shows the view of the outside world, and the second image plane 60 is reserved for displaying the AR-HUD graphics 40. The second image plane 60 spans multiple lanes and the AR-HUD graphics 40 appear at a location farther on a roadway surface 56 relative to the first image plane 58”; para. [0050]: “The TWD system 20 is used to display images on the windscreen 24 of the vehicle 12”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim and Bond et al. by adding the imaging depth as taught by Bond et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the system of Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim and Bond et al. is to provide a greater sense of environmental awareness.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim, Bond et al., and NPL-1.
Regarding claim 10, Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim and Bond et al. teaches the cockpit display system according to claim 9.
Lemcke et al. further discloses (Lemcke et al. at para. [0075]: “All these functions are displayed on the output screen 36 by symbols. In this regard, the order of displayed functions, thus the symbols, corresponds to the order of the fingers on the touch-sensitive surface 32”).
However, Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim and Bond et al. does not explicitly state wherein when the touch action is sliding in a direction of the at least one head-up display.
Nevertheless, Lemcke et al. at least suggests the idea of displaying the symbols associated with certain functions on the touch display and the HUD when fingers are placed on the touch display (Lemcke et al. at FIG. 2 and para. [0067] and [0075]-[0076]).
In the same field of endeavor, NPL-1 teaches wherein when the touch action is sliding in a direction of the at least one head-up display (NPL-1 discloses transferring image data from a first screen to a second screen by sliding the image data displayed on the first screen toward the direction of the second screen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim and Bond et al. by adding the touch action as taught by NPL-1 with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the system of Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim, Bond et al., and NPL-1 is to provide intuitive transfer of image data.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim, Bond et al., NPL-1, and Kweon et al. (US 2019/0051233 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim, Bond et al., and NPL-1 teaches the cockpit display system according to claim 10.
However, Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim, Bond et al., and NPL-1 does not explicitly state wherein the at least one head-up display and the transparent display are adapted to display an image screen in a tiled manner.
In the same field of endeavor, Kweon et al. teaches wherein the at least one head-up display and the transparent display are adapted to display an image screen in a tiled manner (Kweon et al. at FIG. 14(a) and para. [0367]: “the image forming panel 1055 may include a region 1410, b region 1420, and c region 1430. In this case, the plurality of light emitting devices 1052 may include at least three individual light emitting devices, and the FEL 1110 may include at least three sub FELs. For example, the FEL 1110 may include a sub FEL, b sub FEL, and c sub FEL”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim, Bond et al., and NPL-1 by adding displaying the image screen in the tiled manner as taught by Kweon et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the system of Lemcke et al. in view of Xu et al. further in view of Kim, Bond et al., NPL-1, and Kweon et al. is to provide efficient display of images for drivers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kweon et al. in view of Bond et al. (US 2024/0029559 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Kweon et al. discloses a cockpit display system adapted to be installed in a cockpit (Kweon et al. at para. [0225]: “The HUD device 100 may be disposed in a cockpit module”), comprising:
at least one head-up display adapted for display on a see-through window of the cockpit (Kweon et al. at para. [0084]: “The display unit 251 may be implemented as a Head Up Display (HUD). When implemented as a HUD, the display unit 251 may include a projector module in order to output information through an image projected into a windshield or a window”);
a transparent display disposed in the see-through window of the cockpit and (Kweon et al. at para. [0085]: “The display unit 251 may include a transparent display. The transparent display may be attached on the windshield or the window”); and
a control unit electrically connected to the transparent display and the at least one head-up display and adapted to display an image screen on the transparent display and the at least one head-up display in a tiled manner (Kweon et al. at para. [0095]: “The user interface apparatus 200 may operate under control of the controller 170”; FIG. 14(a) and para. [0367]: “the image forming panel 1055 may include a region 1410, b region 1420, and c region 1430. In this case, the plurality of light emitting devices 1052 may include at least three individual light emitting devices, and the FEL 1110 may include at least three sub FELs. For example, the FEL 1110 may include a sub FEL, b sub FEL, and c sub FEL”), wherein the image screen is divided into a first portion displayed on the at least one head-up display and a second portion displayed on the transparent display, and an imaging depth of the first portion is different form an imaging depth of the second portion.
However, Kweon et al. does not explicitly state the transparent display overlapping the at least one head-up display,
wherein the image screen is divided into a first portion displayed on the at least one head-up display and a second portion displayed on the transparent display, and an imaging depth of the first portion is different form an imaging depth of the second portion.
In the same field of endeavor, Bond et al. teaches the transparent display overlapping the at least one head-up display (Bond et al. at para. [0050]: “the AR-HUD system 18 can display the AR HUD graphics 40 in a predefined region of the windscreen 24 (e.g., in the first image plane 58 and the second image plane 60). The TWD system 20 can display TWD graphics (not shown) in any region of the windscreen 24. Therefore, by operating the AR-HUD system 18 and the TWD system 20 in conjunction, the controller 14 may display graphics in any region of the windscreen 24” “the TWD system 20 includes transparent phosphors (not shown) embedded into the windscreen 24 and a TWD projector 68 (FIG. 1)”,
wherein the image screen is divided into a first portion displayed on the at least one head-up display and a second portion displayed on the transparent display, and an imaging depth of the first portion is different form an imaging depth of the second portion (Bond et al. at para. [0038]: “The system 10 generally includes a controller 14, vehicle sensors 16, an augmented reality head-up display (AR-HUD) system 18, a transparent windscreen display (TWD) system 20, and a human-machine interface (HMI) 22”; para. [0049]: “the AR-HUD system 18 has a first image plane 58 and a second image plane 60. The first image plane 58 shows the view of the outside world, and the second image plane 60 is reserved for displaying the AR-HUD graphics 40. The second image plane 60 spans multiple lanes and the AR-HUD graphics 40 appear at a location farther on a roadway surface 56 relative to the first image plane 58”; para. [0050]: “The TWD system 20 is used to display images on the windscreen 24 of the vehicle 12”; para. [0062]: “the AR-HUD system 18 is used when the relevant traffic signal is within the first image plane 58 and/or the second image plane 60. If the relevant traffic signal is outside of the first image plane 58 and the second image plane 60, the TWD system 20 is used to display the graphic”; As shown in FIG. 4, the first image plane 58, the second image plane 60, and image planes other than the first and second image planes 58 and 60 have different imaging depth. Therefore, the AR-HUD system 18 (i.e., head-up display) has an image depth of the image planes 58 and 60 (i.e., first portion) that is different from an image depth of the image planes (i.e., second portion) other than the first and second image planes 58 and 60 of the TWD system 20 (i.e., transparent display)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kweon et al. by adding the transparent display overlapping that at least one head-up display as taught by Bond et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the system of Kweon et al. in view of Bond et al. is to provide a greater sense of environmental awareness.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kweon et al. in view of Bond et al. further in view of Lemcke et al.
Regarding claim 14, Kweon et al. in view of Bond et al. teaches the cockpit display system according to claim 13.
However, Kweon et al. in view of Bond et al. does not explicitly state further comprising:
a touch display disposed in a steering wheel in the cockpit and electrically connected to the control unit, wherein the control unit is adapted to display image information on the touch display according to a touch action performed on the touch display.
In the same field of endeavor, Lemcke et al. teaches further comprising:
a touch display disposed in a steering wheel in the cockpit and electrically connected to the control unit (Lemcke et al. at para. [0049]: “An additional touch-sensitive surface 32 is provided on the steering wheel 12”), wherein the control unit is adapted to display image information on the touch display according to a touch action performed on the touch display (Lemcke et al. at para. [0055]: “The screen and the touch-sensitive surfaces 32 form together a touch-sensitive touch display, such as is well-known from smartphones or tablets”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kweon et al. in view of Bond et al. by adding the touch display of Lemcke et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the system of Kweon et al. in view of Bond et al. further in view of Lemcke et al. is to improve operability of a display interface.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kweon et al. in view of Bond et al. further in view of Lemcke et al. and Xu et al.
Regarding claim 15, Kweon et al. in view of Bond et al. further in view of Lemcke et al. teaches the cockpit display system according to claim 14.
However, Kweon et al. in view of Bond et al. further in view of Lemcke et al. does not explicitly state wherein a decorative layer of the steering wheel covers a display surface of the touch display.
In the same field of endeavor, Xu et al. teaches wherein a decorative layer of the steering wheel covers a display surface of the touch display (Xu et al. at FIGS. 1-2 and pg. 3, ln. 49-51: “the top cover 110 of the touch screen assembly 100 is configured to include a top cover body 1102 and a cover film 1101 covering the top surface of the top cover body 1102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kweon et al. in view of Bond et al. further in view of Lemcke et al. by adding the decorative layer of Xu et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the system of Kweon et al. in view of Bond et al. further in view of Lemcke et al. and Xu et al. is to improve appearance and hand feeling of the touch display.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kweon et al. in view of Bond et al. further in view of Lemcke et al., Xu et al., and Kim.
Regarding claim 16, Kweon et al. in view of Bond et al. further in view of Lemcke et al. and Xu et al. teaches the cockpit display system according to claim 15.
However, Kweon et al. in view of Bond et al. further in view of Lemcke et al. and Xu et al. does not explicitly state wherein when the touch display is touched, the display surface of the touch display is adapted to be deformed and raised toward the decorative layer of the steering wheel.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches wherein when the touch display is touched, the display surface of the touch display is adapted to be deformed and raised toward the decorative layer of the steering wheel (Kim at pg. 1, ln. 11-12: “The user touch feedback method according to an embodiment of the present invention includes: detecting a touch point of a user; Elevating the touch point; pg. 2, ln. 12-14: “The magnet unit 123 and the sensor unit 111 may be disposed on a touch pad of the mobile terminal and may be used as a touch screen when the magnet unit 123 and the sensor unit 111 are transparent 3”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kweon et al. in view of Bond et al. further in view of Lemcke et al. and Xu et al. by adding the touch display that is adapted to be deformed and raised as taught by Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the system of Kweon et al. in view of Bond et al. further in view of Lemcke et al., Xu et al., and Kim is to provide touch feedback for intuitive use of the touch display.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kweon et al. in view of Bond et al. further in view of Lemcke et al. and Langlois et al.
Regarding claim 17, Kweon et al. in view of Bond et al. further in view of Lemcke et al. teaches the cockpit display system according to claim 14.
Lemcke et al. further teaches wherein the image information comprises a functional menu having a plurality of icons (Lemcke et al. at para. [0070]: “This function is displayed in the output screen 36, for example as a symbol or icon”), the control unit is also adapted to switch and display the icons of the functional menu according to another touch action performed on the touch display (Lemcke et al. at FIG. 4 and para. [0083]: “After the user has placed his hand on the touch sensitive surface 32 and the appropriate buttons 48 have been assigned along with the functions by the control unit 32 (FIGS. 2d and 3d), the user can now select the desired functions. This is shown in FIGS. 4a to 4c”; para. [0084]: “he has to initially access the menu for controlling the air conditioning system that can be reached through the "air conditioning system"”; para. [0090]: “The functions of the buttons 48.2 to 48.5 that are assigned to the index, middle, ring and little fingers, have now changed and are now "temperature setting", "fan settings", "rear window heating" and "recirculating air". Consequently, the symbols in the output screen 36 and if necessary the symbols on the optical element 40 have also changed”),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kweon et al. in view of Bond et al. further in view of Lemcke et al. by adding the functional menu of Lemcke et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the system of Kweon et al. in view of Bond et al. further in view of Lemcke et al. is to improve operability of a display interface.
However, Kweon et al. in view of Bond et al. further in view of Lemcke et al. does not explicitly state the another touch action comprises sliding in an arrangement direction of the icons.
In the same field of endeavor, Langlois et al. teaches the another touch action comprises sliding in an arrangement direction of the icons (Langlois et al. at para. [0026]: “a user can brush a finger from left to right over the touch screen, and a corresponding left-to-right motion can appear in the carousel 113, thereby allowing a user to view icons the icons adjacent to the currently focused icon 114”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kweon et al. in view of Bond et al. further in view of Lemcke et al. by adding the another touch action as taught by Langlois et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the system of Kweon et al. in view of Bond et al. further in view of Lemcke et al. and Langlois et al. is to provide efficient management of multiple icons.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kweon et al. in view of Bond et al. further in view of Lemcke et al., Langlois et al., and NPL-1.
Regarding claim 18, Kweon et al. in view of Bond et al. further in view of Lemcke et al. and Langlois et al. teaches the cockpit display system according to claim 17.
Lemcke et al. further teaches wherein the control unit is also adapted to display a functional screen of the selected one among the icons on the at least one head-up display according to the touch action (Lemcke et al. at para. [0075]: “All these functions are displayed on the output screen 36 by symbols. In this regard, the order of displayed functions, thus the symbols, corresponds to the order of the fingers on the touch-sensitive surface 32”),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kweon et al. in view of Bond et al. further in view of Lemcke et al. and Langlois et al. by adding the functional screen of Lemcke et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the system of Kweon et al. in view of Bond et al. further in view of Lemcke et al. and Langlois et al. is to improve operability of a display interface.
However, Kweon et al. in view of Bond et al. further in view of Lemcke et al. and Langlois et al. does not explicitly state the touch action comprises sliding in a direction of the at least one head-up display.
Nevertheless, Lemcke et al. at least suggests the idea of displaying the symbols associated with certain functions on the touch display and the HUD when fingers are placed on the touch display (Lemcke et al. at FIG. 2 and para. [0067] and [0075]-[0076]).
In the same field of endeavor, NPL-1 teaches the touch action comprises sliding in a direction of the at least one head-up display (NPL-1 discloses transferring image data from a first screen to a second screen by sliding the image data displayed on the first screen toward the direction of the second screen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kweon et al. in view of Bond et al. further in view of Lemcke et al. and Langlois et al. by adding the touch action as taught by NPL-1 with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the system of Kweon et al. in view of Bond et al. further in view of Lemcke et al., Langlois et al., and NPL-1 is to provide intuitive transfer of image data.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kweon et al. in view of Bond et al. further in view of Lemcke et al., Langlois et al., NPL-1, and Rush et al.
Regarding claim 19, Kweon et al. in view of Bond et al. further in view of Lemcke et al., Langlois et al., and NPL-1 teaches the cockpit display system according to claim 18.
However, Kweon et al. in view of Bond et al. further in view of Lemcke et al., Langlois et al., and NPL-1 does not explicitly state wherein the touch action further comprises sliding in a direction away from the at least one head-up display.
In the same field of endeavor, Rush et al. teaches wherein the touch action further comprises sliding in a direction away from the at least one head-up display (Rush et al. at para. [0097]: “a control display can be in a smart mode, which allows a user to tum on and turn off a quick access menu by swiping down or swiping up using a hand or finger gesture. For example, a user can swipe down at a predetermined distance across the control display ( either control display A 805 or control display B 807) using a three-finger gesture. The quick access menu can be a list of predetermined applications displayed the dashboard screen 222”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kweon et al. in view of Bond et al. further in view of Lemcke et al., Langlois et al., and NPL-1 by adding the touch action as taught by Rush et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the system of Kweon et al. in view of Bond et al. further in view of Lemcke et al., Langlois et al., NPL-1, and Rush et al. is to provide intuitive operation system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found in the attached PTO-892 form.
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 JISUN CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-0710. 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 Browne can be reached at (571)270-0151. 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.
/JISUN CHOI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights