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 the Claims
Claims 2, 4, 6-9 have been amended, claims 1, 5, 10, and 11 have been cancelled, and claims 12 and 13 have been added; as a result, claims 2-4, 6-9, 12, and 13 are currently pending in the present application, with claims 1, 12, and 13 being independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08 February 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 20 November 2025, with respect to the objection to the specification, along with accompanying amendments received on the same date, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 20 November 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph interpretation applied to claims 1, 2, 5, and 6, along with accompanying amendments received on the same date, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claims 1 and 5 have been cancelled and claims 2 and 6 have been amended to recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed functionality. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph interpretation as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 20 November 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection of claims 1-11, along with accompanying amendments received on the same date, have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. Claims 1, 5, 10, and 11 have been cancelled. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection of claims 1-5 and 8-11 has been withdrawn and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection of claims 6 and 7 has been maintained.
With respect to claims 1, 5, 10, and 11, claims 1, 5, 10, and 11 have been cancelled. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection of claims 1, 5, 10, and 11 and claims previously depending thereon has been withdrawn.
With respect to claims 2 and 4, given the claim interpretation above, and the amendments to claims 2 and 4, the scope of the claimed limitation in light of the corresponding disclosure has been clarified. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection of claims 2 and 4 and claims depending thereon has been withdrawn.
With respect to claim 6, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when interpreted on their own or in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claim remains unclear. For instance, as currently drafted, it is not immediately clear as to how it is determined whether the occupant who performs the operation is the driver or not the driver and how claim 6 fits within the limitations of claim 2. Claim 2 has two states, driving and not in specific state and reaching the specific state. Claim 6 also has two states, the first state, is unclear in that either the first state of claim 2 is executed and then the driver state is executed in claim 6. The second state of claim 6 calls for performing the displaying operation not reaching the specific state if the occupant, who is not the driver, is performing the action. It is unclear, as currently drafted, how this fits in with the executing/not executing of claim 2. Since the scope remains unclear, the 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection of claim 6 and claims depending thereon has been maintained.
Claim Interpretation
A specific state is being interpreted as a speed of the vehicle being less than equal to a predetermined value for a predetermined period of time, the specific state being related to the vehicle stopping or parking. Paragraph 29 sets forth “The vehicle determination unit 141 determines whether the vehicle 1 is in a specific state. The specific state is a state in which the speed of the vehicle 1 is equal to or less than a predetermined value, and more specifically, a state in which the speed of the vehicle 1 is zero for a predetermined period of time. In other words, the specific state is a state in which the vehicle stops or is parking. The vehicle state determination unit 141 determines that the state of the vehicle 1 is the specific state when the speed indicated by the detection unit from the vehicle speed sensor 20 does not change for a predetermined period of time after the detection signal of the vehicle speed sensor 20 indicates 0 km/h”.
“The attention calling information is information indicating attention calling regarding the device operation, and more specifically information indicating attention calling that the display device 100 cannot be operated while the vehicle 1 is driving”, see paragraph 44.
Per at least paragraph 77, a display unit (touch panel) and a storage unit (memory) are both hardware elements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-4, 6-9, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 2, 12, and 13, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when interpreted on their own or in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claim is unclear. For instance, as currently claimed, it is not immediately clear as if the information is output and if the input operation is a touch operation. Claim 2 (and similarly claims 12 and 13) recites “when an operation on the display device is detected...output a voice of attention calling indicating that the display device cannot be operated to be output from an associated speaker”. It appears from the originally filed disclosure that the operation on the display device being detected is a touch operation, see for instance, paragraph 30. Paragraph 54 sets forth “On the other hand, when determining that the detection unit 142 has continuously detected the device operation a plurality of times (step SA11: YES), the voice output unit 145 outputs a voice of attention calling regarding the device operation from the speaker 14 (step SA12). An example of the voice is a voice indicating attention calling such as "operation is not possible" that the operation of the display device 100 is not possible”. That is, the originally filed disclosure appears to describe the output based on a continuous operation being detected and then outputting, from an associated speaker, a voice of attention calling information indicating that the display device cannot be operated. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of claims 2, 12, and 13. Claims depending thereon do not cure the entirety of the deficiencies noted with respect to the claims from which they depend and are accordingly also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that of claim from which it depends.
With respect to claim 6, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when interpreted on their own or in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claim is unclear. For instance, as currently drafted, it is not immediately clear as to how differentiation of the occupant who performs the operation being a driver or not the driver (vs. sitting in the driver’s seat, person driving the vehicle, etc, vs. someone who can drive the vehicle) and how claim 6 fits within the limitations of claim 2. Claim 2 sets forth an operation on the display device is detected while the vehicle is in a driving state and not in a specific state, not change information displayed on the display to information corresponding to the operation detected....and when the vehicle reaches the specific state after storing the information corresponding to the operation detected...change the information displayed on the display to the information corresponding to the operation detected..., while claim 6 sets forth “when determining that the occupant who performs the operation is the driver, not change information displayed on the display until the vehicle reaches the specific state, and when determining that the occupant who performs the operation is not the driver, change information displayed on the display to information corresponding to the operation detected even when the vehicle does not reach the specific state”. How do the specific limitations of claim 6 fit within claim 2 – do they overwrite them? Do they amend the final limitation of claim 2? The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
Claims depending thereon do not cure the entirety of the deficiencies noted with respect to the claims from which they depend and are accordingly also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that of claim from which it depends. Note: claim 7 would be one way to cure the first part of the rejection.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Based on the specific definition set forth in the disclosure, which is outlined under claimed interpretation, the subject matter of claims 3 and 4 is not further over that of claim 2. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6-9, 12, and 13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PG Publication 2021/0139036 to Kim et al. teaches when the vehicle is being driven in the manual driving mode, the first voice recognition engine may output concise guide information for the same function, see for instance, paragraph 366.
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 MICHAEL J COBB whose telephone number is (571)270-3875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11am - 7pm ET.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/MICHAEL J COBB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615