DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Following prior arts are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DE102013013227A1 (hereinafter Audi, machine translation in the IFW is relied upon)
US 8379043 B1 (hereinafter Paige)
US 20180304749 A1 (hereinafter Cho)
Drawing Objection
The drawings are objected to because the drawings do not show numerals 9-14 though they are listed in the specification as part of the figures (see specification para 51-56}. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Audi in view of Paige.
Regarding Claim 1. Audi teaches a road vehicle (1) comprising four wheels (2), of which at least one pair of wheels (2) is a pair of driving wheels: [(para 1, motor vehicle and the Figure ; para 20 car, car have a pair of driving wheels )] a passenger compartment (3) configured to accommodate a driver (DR) and at least one passenger (P) alongside the driver (DR):[(see the Figure and para 17)] a vehicle dashboard (4): [(control panel 22, Figure and para 17)] a content display device (5): [(numeral 24 or #24)] the content display device (5) comprising: 10), mechanically connected to the support element (9) and configured to be visible to a passenger (P) and to a driver (DR) while driving: [(screen 24 is a dual view screen, separate portions is viewed by driver and passenger . See para 17-18)] the road vehicle (1) being characterized in that the screen (10) has a curved shape and is divided horizontally into a first portion (11) and a second portion (12), which are visible respectively, in a substantially mutually exclusive manner, to the driver (DR) and to the passenger (P). [(screen 24 is curved shape has dual view screen, separate portions are viewed by driver and passenger. {the Figure para 17-18}, driver cannot see a portion that is seen by passenger {para 18})]
Audi does not explicitly show a support element (9) mounted centrally at the dashboard (4) of the road vehicle. However, given that in Audi the screen/display is centrally located one would expect to be mounted on a support element
Nevertheless, in the same/related field of endeavor, Paige teaches screen/display is centrally located one would expect to be mounted on a support element [(Column 2 lines 9-12)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts to prevent the screen from moving [(Paige Column 2 lines 9-12, Fig.1 unit 22 & 24)] .
Audi additionally teaches, with regards to claim 3 the road vehicle (1) according to claim 1, wherein the screen (10) is configured so as to have an axis of curvature, the points of which are equidistant from the screen (10) transverse to a transverse axis (T) of the road vehicle (1): in particular, the axis of curvature belongs to a plane that longitudinally cuts through the road vehicle (1). [(plane 32 teaches this {see the Figure} )]
Audi additionally teaches, with regards to claim 6. The road vehicle (1) according to claim 1, wherein the screen (10) comprises two sub-screens (13) which, relative to a longitudinal axis (L) of the road vehicle (1), are preferably arranged one on the right and one on the left of the axis (L). [(see the Figure and para 18 of Audi)]
Audi additionally teaches, with regards to claim 7. The road vehicle (1) according to claim 1 and comprising a control unit (15), which is configured to vary the contents shown by the display device (5) between the first portion (11) visible to the driver (DR) and the second portion (12) visible to the passenger (P). [(para 19)]
Claims 2, 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Audi in view of Paige in view of Cho.
Regarding Claim 2. Audi in view of Paige does not explicitly show the screen (10) has a developable surface, in particular rectangular.
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Cho teaches the screen (10) has a developable surface, in particular rectangular[(para 276, bending display)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
Audi in view of Paige in view of Cho additionally teaches, with regards to claim 4. The road vehicle (1) according to claim 1, wherein the convexity of the screen (10) is directed towards the centre of the passenger compartment (3). [(in Audi, the screen is centered in #32, see the Figure. Convexity or concavity depends on how is it defined, definition of this claim is taught by Audi, also Cho para 276, Fig.20A(c) )]
Audi in view of Paige in view of Cho additionally teaches, with regards to claim 5. The road vehicle (1) according to claim 1, wherein the first portion (11) of the screen (10) visible to the driver (DR) is a left-hand portion, while the second portion (12) of the screen (10) visible to the passenger (P) is a right-hand portion. [(see the Figure and para 18 of Audi and Cho para 276, Fig.20A(c))]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shahan Rahaman whose telephone number is (571)270-1438. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 3:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHAHAN UR RAHAMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426