DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to Preliminary Amendment filed on 10/6/23
Claims 1-6, 13-20 are withdrawn from consideration due to un-elected Species. Claims 7-12 are elected for examination. Claim 7 is independent claim.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA
Notice as to Grounds of Rejection and Pre-AIA or AIA Status
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-6, 13-20 drawn to controlling height of cockpit display area depending upon manual vs self-driving classified in class B60K35/22
II. Claims 7-12, drawn to displaying icons depending upon manual vs self-driving classified in class G06F3/04817
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons: The inventions I and II are unrelated and belong to separate classes. While they are disclosed in the same application, they cover different arts. Group I is directed to controlling height of displays. Group II is directed to displaying icons.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because the inventions belong to different subclasses and requires searches from these classes. Therefore, restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper.
During a telephone conversation with Weidan Fan on 1/15/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of instant application, claims 7-12. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims1-6 and 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-12 recite “…the vehicle being in the self-driving state or a parking state,…”. It appears applicant meant to recite “…the vehicle being in the self-driving state or in a parking state,…”.
Claims 8-12 recite “The method according to…:. These claims should recite “The cockpit display screen display method according to…” to have a proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 7:
Claim 7 recites a cockpit display screen display method and is one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following, for which the bolded items are interpreted to encompass steps that fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion.
a cockpit display screen display method, comprising:
displaying, by a cockpit display screen, a first interface in response to a vehicle being switched to a manual driving state, wherein the first interface comprises an icon of a first application
More specifically, the whole limitation may be practically performed in the human mind. For example, a human can mentally detect/observe vehicle being switched to a manual driving state to perform an action.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
With regards to the additional element/limitation of ‘display screen” this additional element is considered as merely reciting the words ‘apply it’ with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The courts have identified this type of limitation is insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements/limitations “displaying… a first interface; wherein the first interface screen displays an icon of the first application”. this additional element is considered as adding insignificant extra solution activity (‘Mere Data Gathering’) to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Thus, these additional elements identified above when considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, there are three additional elements. The additional elements of “displaying… a first interface; wherein the first interface screen displays an icon of the first application” The courts have found limitations that add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
With regards to the additional element of ‘‘‘display screen”’, as explained in step 2A, Prong Two, this additional element is considered adding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. The courts have found this type of limitation is insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
Thus, when considered, individually and in combination, these additional elements fail to amount to ‘significantly more’.
Claim 7 is ineligible.
Dependent claims 8-12
With regards to claims 8-12, they recite displaying icons, user interfaces in conjunction with state of the vehicle, which are combination of mental process for observing state change of the vehicle and insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering/outputting. The courts have found limitations that add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. The claims are ineligible.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HA et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0302906 A1 hereinafter Ha)
With regard to claim 7, Ha teaches a cockpit display screen display method, comprising:
displaying, by a cockpit display screen <para 0033>, a first interface in response to a vehicle being switched to a manual driving state <driving state can be determined see fig 5 para 0078>, wherein the first interface comprises an icon of a first application <see fig 8 item 835, displaying icons for applications para 0112>.
With regard to claim 8, this claim depends upon claim 7, which is rejected above.
In the same field of endeavor, Ha teaches the method further comprising:
displaying, by the cockpit display screen, a second interface in response to the vehicle being switched to a self-driving <see fig 5 user interface changes based upon driving context para 0007-0008>, fig 8 item 800>, wherein the second interface comprises a first card corresponding to the first application <fig 8 item 131, 833, 800 show card interface corresponding to an application>, and
an area of the second interface is greater than a display area of the first interface <fig 8 item 800 shown greater than the first display fig 8 item 131 shows interface greater that item 835 >.
With regard to claim 9, this claim depends upon claim 8, which is rejected above. In addition, Ha teaches wherein the first card further comprises a control function used by a user to interact with the first application <user can interact with the application fig 8 item 810 para 0109>.
With regard to claim 10, this claim depends upon claim 8, which is rejected above. In addition, Ha teaches the method further comprising:
in response to a display status switching operation input from a user and the
vehicle being in the self-driving state or a parking state, displaying, a display interface specified by the user, wherein the display interface specified by the user is the first interface or the second interface <first display or second display can be used in response to user input para 0109-0112>.
With regard to claim 11, this claim depends upon claim 8, which is rejected above. In addition, Ha teaches the method further comprising:
in response to a user operation of running a first application and
With regard to claim 12, this claim depends upon claim 8, which is rejected above. In addition, Ha teaches wherein in response to the vehicle being in the self-driving state or a parking state, the method further comprises:
displaying, by the cockpit display screen, a third interface, and wherein a display area of the third interface is greater than a display area of the second interface <fig 9 shows application showing in different display areas and different size para 0114-0119>.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Murayama (US 2019/0041652) para 0090 height of the display device is varied between the time of manual and autonomous driving.
Amano et al (US 2019/0193644) para 0010-0011, para 0071, fi8 change in display height as driving state changes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANIL K BHARGAVA whose telephone number is (571)270-3278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 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, Adam Queler can be reached at 571-272-4140. 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.
/ANIL K BHARGAVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172