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 .
Drawings
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
With respect to the drawings, the drawings were scanned as other than black and white line drawings. Fig.8-Fig.13 appear to be blurry and are not clear if applicant’s intention is to use colors or just different shadings.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a first generation unit”, “a second generation unit”, “an inter-area image generation unit”, and “an image output unit” in claims 1-9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The limitations “a first generation unit”, “a second generation unit”, “an inter-area image generation unit”, and “an image output unit” are all part of the display processor 13 which is part of the vehicular device 10 as recited in Paragraph 0035.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 3 and 5 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.
The term “importance” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “importance” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Paragraphs 0077 and 0078 discloses importance of information but doesn’t specify a rule or a function of determining what is important vs not important. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as “changing the inter-area image in general”.
With respect to claim 5, the applicant claims “type of the first image content or the second image content”. It is not clear to the examiner what the applicant is trying to convey with the limitation “type”. Paragraph 0056 mentions “type of various image” and Paragraph 0071 discloses “depending on the type”, but none of said paragraphs define what type of images are or could be. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as “wherein the inter-area image generation unit is configured to change the inter-area image according to .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamoto et al US 2008/0150709 A1 (the applicant has provided said reference in IDS filed on 09/26/2023, hence Yamamoto).
In re claims 1, and 9-10, Yamamoto discloses onboard display devices and systems for displaying the traveling speed, engine speed, and other conditions of the vehicle (Abstract and Paragraph 0001) and teaches the following:
a first generation unit configured to generate a first image content to be displayed (Fig.2, #12, and Paragraph 0040 “a display control section 12”) at a first frame rate in a first display area (Fig.4, #32a, Paragraph 0062 “The display section 32 can accommodate three display areas”, and Paragraph 0063 “a navigation image to the first display area 32a”);
a second generation unit configured to generate a second image content to be displayed (Fig.2, #12, and Paragraph 0040 “a display control section 12”) at a second frame rate in a second display area adjacent to the first display area (Fig.4, #32c, Paragraph 0062 “The display section 32 can accommodate three display areas”, and Paragraph 0063 “a rear view display to the third display area 32c”);
an inter-area image generation unit configured to generate an inter-area image to be displayed (Fig.2, #12, and Paragraph 0040 “a display control section 12”) between the first display area and the second display area (Fig.4, #32b, Paragraph 0062 “The display section 32 can accommodate three display areas”, and Paragraph 0063 “a speed display to the second display area 32b”);
and an image output unit configured to synthesize and output the first image content, the second image content, and the inter-area image ((Fig.2, #12, and Paragraph 0040 “a display control section 12”, and Fig.4, #32a, #32b, and #32c)
In re claim 2, Yamamoto teaches the following:
wherein the inter-area image generation unit is configured to change the inter-area image according to a traveling scene in which the vehicle travels (Fig.6, and Paragraph 0068 “the entire scene around the vehicle being reproduced on the display section 33”)
In re claim 3, Yamamoto teaches the following:
wherein the inter-area image generation unit is configured to change the inter-area image according to importance of information to be displayed in the first display area or the second display area (the BRI of the claim as recited above is displaying information on the first display area, the second display area, and the inter-area image, Fig.4, and Fig.6 and Paragraph 0072)
In re claim 4, Yamamoto teaches the following:
wherein the inter-area image generation unit is configured to change the inter-area image according to a driving scene in which the vehicle is driven (Fig.6, and Paragraph 0068 “the entire scene around the vehicle being reproduced on the display section 33”)
In re claim 5, Yamamoto teaches the following:
wherein the inter-area image generation unit is configured to change the inter-area image according to a type of the first image content or the second image content (the BRI of the claim as recited above is displaying information continuously, Fig.4, Fig.6, and Paragraph 0072)
In re claim 6, Yamamoto teaches the following:
wherein the inter-area image generation unit is configured to display the inter-area image by a still image (Paragraph 0071 “a third omnidirectional camera 15c at the mid-rear of the automobile 10”, and Paragraph 0072 “image captured by the third omnidirectional camera 15c is displayed as a rear view display in the third display area 33c on the display section in FIG. 6”)
In re claim 7, Yamamoto teaches the following:
wherein the inter-area image generation unit is configured to change the inter-area image according to a position between the first display area and the second display area (Fig.5 and Fig.6)
In re claim 8, Yamamoto teaches the following:
wherein the inter-area image generation unit is configured to generate the inter-area image in a mode including an equipment of the vehicle (Paragraphs 0071-0072 “camera system 15 may be mounted as shown in FIG. 7”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hofmann et al US 8,674,820 B2 discloses a display device that can be controlled by the control device such that the display device has a first display mode in which the at least one round instrument is displayed to the viewer and the display has a display area within the round instrument and a display area outside the round instrument, and the display device has a second display mode in which the at least one round instrument is not displayed to the viewer, the information which can be displayed by the round instrument is represented by a digital reading of the display, and the information displayed by the display in the first display mode within the round instrument is displayed in another display area of the display.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669