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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed May 19, 2026 has been entered. Independent claims 1 and 20 have been amended. The amendments have overcome the claim objection and the §112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed February 27, 2026. Therefore, the objection to claim 20 and the §112(b) rejections to claims 1-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the §103 rejections to claims 1 and 20 are improper because it would not have been obvious to a POSITA to include “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.” Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons.
Applicant argues that the motivation provided by Examiner teaches away from the features of the present invention (see Remarks, p. 9). Examiner respectfully disagrees. A POSITA would be motivated to include an additional display unit so that a user would have the option to view multiple display interfaces simultaneously (e.g. a streaming music interface and a GPS navigation interface.) A POSITA would recognize that in some instances the user may only wish to utilize one of the displays at a time; and in that situation, it would be beneficial to store the other display in an accommodating space in order to save space and reduce clutter on the surface of the car’s dashboard (i.e. the workbench). This motivation does not contradict or teach away from the features of the present invention recited in claims 1 and 20.
Applicant argues that Ido lacks any teaching related to the cooperative movement or control logic required to position multiple displays, and that Examiner’s conclusion of its possibility is based on improper hindsight reasoning gleaned from the disclosure of the present application (see Remarks, p. 9). In response to Applicant's argument that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Claims 1 and 20 do not recite any features related to control logic, and the only detail related to cooperative movement between the two displays is that the invention is capable of displaying one of the displays on the surface of the workbench while the other is stored in the accommodating space. No knowledge from Applicant’s disclosure would be necessary in order for a POSITA to merely duplicate the display disclosed by Ido in order to arrive at the claimed invention. This kind of modification would require only knowledge within the level of ordinary skill in the art, such as the duplication of parts (i.e. adding a second display having the same functionality as the first) and change in size (i.e. making the casing bigger, or the parts smaller, so that two displays could fit in the casing). Duplication of working parts and a change in size are both generally recognized by courts as being with the level or ordinary skill in the art. St Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8; In re Rose, 105 USPQ 227 (CCPA 1955).
Applicant argues that merely duplicating Ido’s display unit would not automatically achieve the configuration recited in the claims (see Remarks, p. 9). Examiner respectfully disagrees. No reconfiguration beyond enlarging Ido’s casing (or using smaller parts) and adding an additional display unit with the same capabilities as the first would be required to achieve the invention as it is recited in claims 1 and 20.
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 state (71) by the motor driving assembly (40, 50, and 60); and
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 a displayed state (73 in Fig. 8-4; left-right direction in Figs. 8-1 and 8-4) is different from a normal direction in a stored state (71 in Fig. 8-1; up-down direction in Figs. 8-1 and 8-4), wherein the displayed state (73) is adjusted to the stored state (74) by the motor driving assembly (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.”).
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights