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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 2, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed February 2, 2026 has been entered. Independent claims 1 and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed February 2, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 20 under §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ido, and with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under §102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jeon, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made under §103 in view of Ido. Please see the rejections below for Examiner’s reasoning.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20 recites the limitations “a displayed state” and “a stored state” in line 9. Applicant already introduced “a displayed state” and “a stored state” in line 4. Applicant likely meant to refer to “the displayed state” and “the stored state,” respectively, in line 9. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the stored displayed state” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will assume that Applicant meant to refer to “the stored state.” Claims 2-19 are rejected based on their dependence to claim 1.
Claim 20 recites the limitations “the first displayed state” and “the second displayed state” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Examiner will interpret these limitations as “a first displayed state” and “a second displayed state,” respectively.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ido (US 7,830,460 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Ido teaches a vehicle electronic device (electronic device 90), comprising:
a display unit comprising a first display unit (movable unit 1; from col. 5, lines 61-62: “The movable unit 1 includes a liquid crystal panel 1m as the display surface.”) having a displayed state (regular standing position 73 shown in Figs. 8-4 and 9-2; opposite standing position 74 shown in Figs. 8-8 and 9-4) and a stored state (housing position 71 shown in Fig. 8-1);
a motor driving assembly (movement driving unit 40, turn driving unit 50, and rotation driving unit 60), connected to the display unit (1), wherein the displayed state (73 and 74) is adjusted to the stored
a workbench (dashboard 95), wherein an accommodating space (interior of casing 2) with an opening (opening 2f) is formed inside the workbench (95), wherein the motor driving assembly (40, 50, and 60) moves (from col. 7, lines 18-21: “The movement driving unit 40 is a driving source for taking the movable unit 1 in and out with respect to the casing 2 by advancing or retracting the slide casing 4.”) and flips (from col. 7, lines 21-23: “The turn driving unit 50 is a driving source for turning the movable unit 1 with respect to the casing 2.”) the display unit (1), so that the display unit (1) is displayed on a surface of the workbench (see Fig. 1) or accommodated in the accommodating space (see Fig. 8-1).
Ido lacks the specific teaching of a second display unit, wherein in the displayed state,
one of the first display unit and the second display unit is displayed on the surface of the workbench, and the other of the first display unit and the second display unit is accommodated in the accommodating space.
Ido discloses the claimed invention except for the second display unit. It would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to include an additional display unit since it has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. This would be a simple modification to the device taught by Ido. One would merely need to enlarge casing 2 and place a second movable unit, as well as its associated mounting and transmission components, laterally adjacent to the original movable unit 1. This would allow one of the original movable unit 1 and the second movable unit to be displayed on the surface of dashboard 95 while the other movable unit is accommodated in the interior of casing 2. Alternatively, one could keep casing 2 the same size and use smaller movable units, mounting components, and transmission components. A change in size is also recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). One would be motivated to include a second display unit so that an additional interface can be displayed to a user. For example, the first display unit could display a streaming music application and the second display unit could display a GPS navigation interface. If the user is not using GPS navigation, the second display unit could be disposed in the accommodating space to save room.
Regarding claim 2, Ido teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Ido further teaches the vehicle electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the display unit (1) is horizontally accommodated in the accommodating space (interior of 2; see Fig. 8-1).
Regarding claim 3, Ido teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Ido further teaches the vehicle electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the motor driving assembly (40, 50, and 60) comprises a driving member (first motor 41 and second motor 51), a transmission member (worm gear 42, connection gear group 43, pinion gears 45, worm gear 52, connection gear group 53, shaft gears 54, and fixing gears 56), and a linkage member (shafts 44 and 55).
Regarding claim 4, Ido teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 as stated above. Ido further teaches the vehicle electronic device according to claim 3, wherein the driving member (41 and 51) is driven to drive the transmission member (42, 43, 45, 52, 53, 54, and 56) and the linkage member (44 and 55), such that the display unit (1) is driven to move (see col. 7 lines 26- 54) and flip (see col. 7 lines 55-67).
Regarding claim 5, Ido teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Ido further teaches the vehicle electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the motor driving assembly (40, 50, and 60) comprises a driving member (41 and 51), a transmission member (42, 43, 45, 52, 53, 54, and 56), a linkage member (44 and 55), and a guide unit (rack gears 46).
Regarding claim 6, Ido teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 as stated above. Ido further teaches the vehicle electronic device according to claim 5, wherein the driving member (41 and 51) is driven so that the transmission member (specifically pinion gears 45) moves along the guide unit (46) to link a movement of the linkage member (44 and 55), such that the display unit (1) is driven to move (see col. 7 lines 26-54) and flip (see col. 7 lines 55-67).
Regarding claim 7, Ido teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 as stated above. Ido further teaches the vehicle electronic device according to claim 5, wherein the driving member (41 and 51) comprises one or a combination of a DC motor, an AC motor, a synchronous motor, and an asynchronous motor (Ido is silent as to the type of motor, however in must be either AC or DC).
Regarding claim 8, Ido teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 as stated above. Ido further teaches the vehicle electronic device according to claim 5, wherein the transmission member comprises a gear, a pulley assembly, a lever, an axle, a pulley, an inclined plane, a wedge, or a helical structure (43, 45, 53, 54, and 56 are gears; 42 and 52 are gears with a helical structure).
Regarding claim 9, Ido teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 as stated above. Ido further teaches the vehicle electronic device according to claim 5, wherein the linkage member comprises a connecting rod, a pulley assembly, a lever, an axle, a pulley, an inclined plane, a wedge, or a helical structure (44 and 55 are rods or axles).
Regarding claim 10, Ido teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 as stated above. Ido further teaches the vehicle electronic device according to claim 5, wherein the guide unit comprises a slide rail, a rail, a rack, a groove, or a sleeve (46 is a rack).
Regarding claim 11, Ido teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Ido further teaches the vehicle electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the motor driving assembly (40, 50, and 60) comprises a driving member (third motor 61) that is configured to rotate the display unit (from col. 8 lines 1-2: “A third motor 61, which is a rotation motor for rotating the movable unit 1 is provided on the rotation driving unit 60.”).
Regarding claim 12, Ido teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Ido further teaches the vehicle electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the motor driving assembly (40, 50, and 60) comprises a driving member (51) that is configured to change a tilt angle of the display unit (driving member 51 moves movable unit 1 in directions M3-M6 as shown in Figs. 8-3, 8-4, and 9-2).
Regarding claim 13, Ido teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Ido further teaches the vehicle electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the motor driving assembly (40, 50, and 60) comprises a driving member (41) that is configured to change a position of the display unit (1) in a Y direction (left-right direction in Fig. 8-2 can be considered a Y direction).
Regarding claim 14, Ido teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Ido further teaches the vehicle electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the motor driving assembly comprises a driving member (51) that is configured to change a position of the display unit (1) in an X direction (the up-down direction in Figs. 8-2 - 8-4 can be considered an X direction).
Regarding claim 15, Ido teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Ido further teaches the vehicle electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the motor driving assembly comprises a driving member (41) that is configured to change a position of the display unit (1) in a Z direction (left-right direction in Fig. 8-2 can be considered a Z direction).
Examiner Note: The X, Y and Z directions are not defined in the claims, so any direction can reasonably be considered an X, Y, or Z direction, especially since the claims that mention these directions are all independent of each other.
Regarding claim 16, Ido teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Ido further teaches that the display unit comprises a first display unit and a second display unit (see claim 1 rejection above). Ido lacks the specific teaching that an area of the first display unit is greater than an area of the second display unit.
Ido discloses or renders obvious all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for an area of the first display unit being greater than an area of the second display unit. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make an area of the first display unit greater than an area of the second display unit, since such a modification involves a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). One would be motivated be make the display units have different areas for aesthetic reasons or so that applications with different sized display interfaces can run on each display. For example, it may be preferable to run a GPS navigation application on a large screen and a streaming music application on a small screen.
Regarding claim 17, Ido teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 as stated above. Ido further teaches the vehicle electronic device according to claim 16, wherein the first display unit of the display unit (1) is accommodated in the accommodating space (interior of 2; see Fig. 8-1) through the motor driving assembly (40, 50, and 60).
Regarding claim 18, Ido teaches all of the limitations of claim 17 as stated above. Ido further teaches the vehicle electronic device according to claim 17, wherein the second display unit of the display unit is accommodated in the accommodating space through the motor driving assembly (see claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claim 19, Ido teaches all of the limitations of claim 17 as stated above. Ido further teaches the vehicle electronic device according to claim 17, wherein the first display unit and the second display unit of the display unit are accommodated in the accommodating space through the motor driving assembly (see claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claim 20, Ido teaches a storage method of a vehicle electronic device (90), comprising:
providing a display unit (1) and a motor driving assembly (40, 50, and 60) connected to the display unit (1), wherein the display unit comprises a first display unit (1) having a displayed state (73 and 74) and a stored state (71);
providing a workbench (95), and forming an accommodating space (interior of 2) with an opening (2f) inside the workbench (95); and
driving the motor driving assembly (40, 50, and 60), so that the display unit (1) is displayed on a surface of the workbench (95; see Fig. 1) or accommodated in the accommodating space (interior of 2; see Fig. 8-1), wherein a normal direction of the display unit (1) in the displayed state (73 in Fig. 8-4; left-right direction in Figs. 8-1 and 8-4) is different from a normal direction in the stored state (71 in Fig. 8-1; up-down direction in Figs. 8-1 and 8-4), wherein a first displayed state (73) is adjusted to a second displayed state (74) by the motor driving assembly (turn driving unit 50 and rotation driving unit 60 move the display from regular standing position 73 to opposite standing position 74; see Figs. 8-4 – 8-8).
Ido lacks the specific teaching of a second display unit, wherein in the displayed state,
one of the first display unit and the second display unit is displayed on the surface of the workbench, and the other of the first display unit and the second display unit is accommodated in the accommodating space.
Ido discloses the claimed invention except for the second display unit. It would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to include an additional display unit since it has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. This would be a simple modification to the device taught by Ido. One would merely need to enlarge casing 2 and place a second movable unit, as well as its associated mounting and transmission components, laterally adjacent to the original movable unit 1. This would allow one of the original movable unit 1 and the second movable unit to be displayed on the surface of dashboard 95 while the other movable unit is accommodated in the interior of casing 2. Alternatively, one could keep casing 2 the same size and use smaller movable units, mounting components, and transmission components. A change in size is also recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). One would be motivated to include a second display unit so that an additional interface can be displayed to a user. For example, the first display unit could display a streaming music application and the second display unit could display a GPS navigation interface. If the user is not using GPS navigation, the second display unit could be disposed in the accommodating space to save room.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS TERRY MULARSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-0284. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Imani Hayman can be reached at (571)270-5528. 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.
/R.T.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841