DETAILED ACTION
This non-final action is in response to the reply to the request for continued examination (RCE) and amendment, filed 22 June 2026, which was in response to the final action, dated 19 March 2026.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 22 June 2026 has been entered.
Response to RCE and Amendments
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8, 10, 11 and 13 have been amended.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 1, 7, 9-13 (pgs. 3-10, Action), applicant’s amendments necessitated additional searching and consideration of new grounds of rejection. Accordingly, the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are: claims 1-4, 8 and 11-14 in view of Maltsev and Yang; claims 5, 7, 15, 17 in view of Maltsev, Yang and Lee; claims 6 and 16 in view of Maltsev, Yang, Lee and Colosky; claim 9 in view of Maltsev, Yang and Tsay; claims 10 and 19 in view of Maltsev, Yang, Lee and Colosky; claim 18 in view of Maltsev, Yang, Tsay and Kim; and claim 20 in view of Maltsev, Yang and Colosky, as discussed below.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 20 (pgs. 24-27, Action), Applicant contends that Colosky relates to an “agricultural work vehicle display system ... which is fundamentally different from the claimed in-vehicle infotainment system” (pg. 10, Reply). While this contention may be true it does not invalidate the citation of Colosky in the 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness rejection.
MPEP 2141.01(a) states that a “reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: ... or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Further when “more than one prior art reference is used as the basis of an obviousness rejection, it is not required that the references be analogous art to each other.” . In order for a reference to be "reasonably pertinent" to the problem, it must "logically ... have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem."
Applicant’s invention relates to manipulating display element (regions) to present navigation information and (specification [0006]). Colosky relates to a system that increase the degree to which targeted areas of a field are treated <interpreted as improving navigation, by presenting/displaying navigation information>, while minimizing off-target treatment as the work implement is moved across the field by a work vehicle (specification [0004]). Both the applicant’s invention and Colosky relate to displaying information that assists with navigation. Thus, Colosky is reasonably pertinent because a person of ordinary skill would have consulted it and applied its teachings when faced with the problem of improving navigation by displaying navigational information.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 non-obviousness.
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 1-4, 8 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0337901 to Maltsev et al. (hereafter Maltsev) and U.S. Patent Publication Number 2016/0077652 to Yang.
As per claim 1, Maltsev discloses [a]n in-vehicle infotainment system of a vehicle, the in-vehicle infotainment system (see at least Maltsev, Abstract, disclosing methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on a computer storage medium, for display graphics in a vehicle display. In one aspect, a method includes the actions of determining that an application that displays data in a non-safety critical information portion of a vehicle display has launched, wherein the vehicle display displays non-safety critical information in the non-safety critical information portion and safety critical information in a safety critical information portion of the display; providing, to a vehicle system that manages the vehicle display, context that characterizes the application; receiving, from the vehicle system, display state information that identifies an area of the vehicle display that is currently allocated to the non-safety critical information portion) comprising:
a display device comprising a first region, a second region, and a third region (see at least Maltsev, [0018] disclosing that FIG. 1 is a diagram of an example vehicle display 100 for displaying safety critical information and non-safety critical information. The vehicle display 100 includes a safety critical information portion 110 and a non-safety critical information portion 120. While shown as rectangular in FIG. 1, the vehicle display 100 can have various shapes; [0059] disclosing that FIGS. 8A-8B are diagrams illustrating examples of multiple areas being allocated for displaying non-safety critical information in non-safety critical information portions of a vehicle display. When the user display system 200 receives the display state information, the user display system 200 identifies multiple areas of the vehicle display that are allocated to non-safety critical information portions. Referring to FIGS. 8A and 8B, the areas 120, 160 are the areas allocated to the non-safety critical information portions <area 110, 120 and 160 interpreted a regions>);
storage configured to store a first information element, a second information element, and a third information element (see at least Maltsev, [0023] disclosing that depending on the implementation, the user display system 200 can communicate with the vehicle system 300 using any of a variety of techniques. In some implementations, the user display system 200 and the vehicle system 300 can both be a part of one system on chip and share a memory or send data through shared communication channels. In some implementations, the user display system 200 and the vehicle system 300 can be implemented on different chipsets and the user display system 200 communicates with the vehicle system 300 through wired or wireless communication channels. In some implementations, the user display system 200 can communicate with the vehicle system 300 using a dedicated communication channel for particular data, e.g., graphics data. In this example, the user display system 200 may communicate with the vehicle display 300 using other communication channels for other types of data; [0072] disclosing that one or more modules of computer program instructions encoded on a tangible non transitory storage medium for execution by, or to control the operation of, data processing apparatus. The computer storage medium can be a machine-readable storage device, a machine-readable storage substrate, a random or serial access memory device, or a combination of one or more of them. Alternatively or in addition, the program instructions can be encoded on an artificially generated propagated signal, e.g., a machine-generated electrical, optical, or electromagnetic signal, that is generated to encode information for transmission to suitable receiver apparatus for execution by a data processing apparatus); and
a controller configured to control the display device to display: the first information element in the first region, the second information element in the second region, the third information element in the third region (see at least Maltsev, [0023]); and
control, based on an additional information element being displayed in the third region, the display device to display, in the first region, the first information element and the third information element (see at least Maltsev, [0059] disclosing that FIGS. 8A-8B are diagrams illustrating examples of multiple areas being allocated for displaying non-safety critical information in non-safety critical information portions of a vehicle display. When the user display system 200 receives the display state information, the user display system 200 identifies multiple areas of the vehicle display that are allocated to non-safety critical information portions <interpreted as control based on an additional information element being displayed in the third region > . Referring to FIGS. 8A and 8B, the areas 120, 160 are the areas allocated to the non-safety critical information portions; [0060] disclosing that the user display system 200 generates the application display information defining the area allocated for displaying graphics data generated by a launched application as a window 130 within the area 120 of the vehicle display 100 that is currently allocated to the non-safety critical portion and defining the area allocated for displaying graphics data generated by a launched application as a window 140 within the area 160 of the vehicle display 100 that is currently allocated to the non-safety critical portion) ... . But, the difference between Maltsev and the claimed invention is that Maltsev does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Yang, a comparable system where it was known to have:
display, in the first region, the first information element and the third information element by moving the third information element into the first region (see at least Yang, [0127] disclosing that FIG. 7 illustrates an example in which the application exchanges display regions. The application displayed on the main display region (m) and the other application displayed on the auxiliary display region (a) may be exchanged with each other as shown in FIG. 7 <interpreted as containing the first and third regions>. In other words, if a first visual interface related to a first application is displayed in the main display region (m), and if the auxiliary information related to a second application is displayed on the auxiliary display region (a), a second visual interface related to the second application may be displayed in the main display region (m) according to the user manipulation or the predefined configuration, and the auxiliary information related to the first application may be displayed in the auxiliary display region (a); [0128] disclosing that as shown in the swap example of FIG. 7, if the user receives a phone call from another party during vehicle traveling, the conversation application is executed on the main display region and the visual interface (m5) of the conversation application may be mandatorily displayed in the main display region. For example, the legacy auxiliary information, for example, the auxiliary information (a4) related to the navigation application, may be continuously displayed on the auxiliary display region; [0129]).
Maltsev and Yang are analogous art to claim 1 because they are in the same field of in-vehicle infotainment systems. Maltsev relates to a vehicle display (see Maltsev, [0001]). Yang relates to a vehicle, a display device for the vehicle, and a method for controlling the vehicle display device (see Yang, [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Maltsev, to provide the benefit of display, in the first region, the first information element and the third information element by moving the third information element into the first region as disclosed in Yang, with a reasonable expectation of success. The results would have been predicable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As per claim 2, The combination of Maltsev and Yang discloses all of the limitations in claim 1, as shown above. Maltsev further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the first information element comprises a driving information element associated with the vehicle (see at least Maltsev, [0020] disclosing that the critical information portion 110 displays safety critical information. Safety critical information is information related to ensuring the safety of a vehicle or a user of the vehicle. For example, the safety critical information portion 110 can display one or more of current vehicle speed, revolutions per minute (RPM) of the vehicle engine, engine temperature, safety warnings, coolant temperature, oil level, condition of braking system, oil pressure, battery charging level, tire condition, and so on. Referring to FIG. 1, the safety critical information portion 110 displays current speed information 111 of the vehicle),
wherein the second information element comprises a user-selected information element (see at least Maltsev, [0021]; [0064] disclosing that a user display system determines that an application has launched (Step 910, Fig. 9). Applications provide data for displaying in the non-safety critical information portion of the vehicle display. The data provided by the applications may include texts, pictures, or any visual graphics that can be displayed in the vehicle display), and
wherein the third information element comprises a navigation information element (see at least Maltsev, [0021] disclosing that non-safety critical information portion 120 displays non-safety critical information. Non-safety critical information is information that is not related to ensuring the safety of a vehicle or a user. For example, the non-safety critical information may include user information such as notification information or entertainment information. In addition, the non-safety critical information may include vehicle information such as navigation information) ... . Yang further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the controller is further configured to, based on the third information element being moved into the first region, reduce a region of a navigation map displayed in the first region (see at least Yang, [00127]; [0128]; [0129]).
As per claim 3, The combination of Maltsev and Yang discloses all of the limitations in claim 2, as shown above. Maltsev further discloses the following:
wherein the driving information element indicates at least one of a vehicle speed, an engine speed, or fuel efficiency (see at least Maltsev, [0020]).
As per claim 4, The combination of Maltsev and Yang discloses all of the limitations in claim 2, as shown above. Maltsev further discloses the following:
wherein the user-selected information element indicates at least one of a picture, a current date, a current time, or an external temperature (see at least Maltsev, [0020]; [0064]).
As per claim 8, The combination of Maltsev and Yang discloses all of the limitations in claim 1, as shown above. Maltsev further discloses the following:
wherein the first region, the second region, and the third region are integrally formed on a screen of the display device (see at least Maltsev, Fig. 8A and 8B showing areas 110, 120 and 160 < interpreted as being integrally formed on a screen of the display>; [0059]-[0062]) ... . Yang further discloses the following limitation:
and wherein the second information element displayed in the second region remains displayed when the additional information element is displayed in the third region (see at least Yang, Fig. 3, 134, second region; and 110 containing first and third regions; Fig. 7, N5, N4,first region, A1-4, third region; [0127]-[0129]).
As per claim 11, similar to claim 1, Maltsev discloses [a] method (see at least Maltsev, abstract) comprising:
displaying, via a display device of an infotainment system in a vehicle (see at least Maltsev, [0018]; [0059]);
a first information element in a first region of the display device, a second information element in a second region of the display device, and a third information element in a third region of the display device (see at least Maltsev, FIGS. 8A and 8B, the areas 120, 160 are the areas allocated to the non-safety critical information portions <area 110, 120 and 160 interpreted a regions of the display device>);
receiving a command for displaying an additional information element in the third region (see at least Maltsev, [0023]); and
displaying, based on the receiving of the command: the first information element and the third information element in the first region ... , and the additional information element in the third region (see at least Maltsev, [0023]; [0060] ). But, the difference between Maltsev and the claimed invention is that Maltsev does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Yang, a comparable system where it was known to have:
display, in the first region, the first information element and the third information element by moving the third information element into the first region (see at least Yang, [0127]; [0128]; [0129]).
Maltsev and Yang are analogous art to claim 11 because they are in the same field of in-vehicle infotainment systems. Maltsev relates to a vehicle display (see Maltsev, [0001]). Yang relates to a vehicle, a display device for the vehicle, and a method for controlling the vehicle display device (see Yang, [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Maltsev, to provide the benefit of display, in the first region, the first information element and the third information element by moving the third information element into the first region as disclosed in Yang, with a reasonable expectation of success. The results would have been predicable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As per claim 12, similar to claim 2, the combination of Maltsev and Yang discloses all of the limitations of claim 11, as shown above. Maltsev further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the first information element comprises a driving information element associated with the vehicle (see at least Maltsev, [0020]),
wherein the second information element comprises a user-selected information element (see at least Maltsev, [0021]; [0064]), and
wherein the third information element comprises a navigation information element (see at least Maltsev, [0021]).
As per claim 13, similar to claim 3, the combination of Maltsev and Yang discloses all of the limitations of claim 12, as shown above. Maltsev further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the driving information element indicates at least one of a vehicle speed, an engine speed, or fuel efficiency (see at least Maltsev, [0020]) ... . Yang further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the method further comprises, based on the third information element being moved into the first region, realigning a position of the first information element displayed in the first region (see at least Yang, [0127]; [0128]; [0129]).
As per claim 14, similar to claim 4, the combination of Maltsev and Yang discloses all of the limitations of claim 12, as shown above. Maltsev further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the user-selected information element indicates at least one of a picture, a current date, a current time, or an external temperature (see at least Maltsev, [0020]; [0064]).
Claims 5, 7, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maltsev and Yang as applied to claims 1, 2, 11 and 12 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2016/0004418 to Lee et al. (hereafter Lee).
As per claim 5, the combination of Maltsev and Yang discloses all of the limitations of claim 2, as shown above. But, neither Maltsev nor Yang explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Lee:
wherein the navigation information element comprises a navigation map being displayed across the first region, the second region, and the third region (see at least Lee, Fig. 10A and 10B, showing C1, C1 and B1 B2 <interpreted as the first, second and third regions>; [0215] disclosing that As shown in FIG. 10A, the first user interface 210 may display an image A1 of driving information in the static area 211, and display an image A31 of a navigation function and an image A32 of a music play function, in the variable area 212. Also, the second user interface 220 may display an image C2 of the navigation function and an image C1 of buttons for controlling an air conditioning function, in the first area 221, and display lists B11 and B12 of linking information in the second area 222; [0218] disclosing that the first user interface 210 may delete the image A32 of the music play function displayed in the variable area 212, and display only the image A31 of the navigation function in the variable area 212).
Maltsev, Yang and Lee are analogous art to claim 5 because they in the same field of in-vehicle infotainment systems. Maltsev relates to a vehicle display (see Maltsev, [0001]). Yang relates to a vehicle, a display device for the vehicle, and a method for controlling the vehicle display device (see Yang, [0003]). Lee relates to a user interface apparatus of receiving a command from a user and outputting information about operation being performed, a vehicle having the user interface apparatus, and a method of controlling the vehicle (see Lee, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Maltsev as modified by Yang, to provide the benefit of having the navigation information element comprises a navigation map being displayed across the first region, the second region, and the third region, as disclosed in Lee, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of permitting the drive to keep their gaze forward when manipulating or checking the user interface, thus improving safety (see at least Lee, [0010]).
As per claim 7, the combination of Maltsev and Yang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, neither Maltsev nor Yang explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Lee:
wherein the additional information element comprises at least one of an application menu, a display setting menu, or a navigation settings menu (see at least Lee, [0161] disclosing that the second user interface 220 may determine whether a touch input is applied while the menu M is displayed in the second area 222. If the second user interface 220 determines that a touch input is applied while the menu is displayed in the second area 222, the second user interface 220 may display information of a function corresponding to a location at which the touch input is applied, and enable the function to be executed; [0182] disclosing that with regard to FIG. 8C, if the second area 222 is touched for a predetermined time period or more (input T), the second user interface 220 may display a menu M of a plurality of functions in the second area 222, as shown in FIG. 8D) .
Maltsev, Yang and Lee are analogous art to claim 7 because they in the same field of in-vehicle infotainment systems. Maltsev relates to a vehicle display (see Maltsev, [0001]). Yang relates to a vehicle, a display device for the vehicle, and a method for controlling the vehicle display device (see Yang, [0003]). Lee relates to a user interface apparatus of receiving a command from a user and outputting information about operation being performed, a vehicle having the user interface apparatus, and a method of controlling the vehicle (see Lee, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Maltsev as modified by Yang, to provide the benefit of having the additional information element comprise at least one of an application menu, a display setting menu, or a navigation settings menu, as disclosed in Lee, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of permitting the drive to keep their gaze forward when manipulating or checking the user interface, thus improving safety (see at least Lee, [0010]).
As per claim 15, similar to claim 5, the combination of Maltsev and Yang discloses all of the limitations of claim 12, as shown above. But, neither Maltsev nor Yang explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Lee:
wherein the navigation information element comprises a navigation map being displayed across the first region, the second region, and the third region (see at least Lee, Fig. 10A and 10B, showing C1, C1 and B1 B2 <interpreted as the first, second and third regions>; [0215]; [0218]).
Maltsev, Yang and Lee are analogous art to claim 15 because they in the same field of in-vehicle infotainment systems. Maltsev relates to a vehicle display (see Maltsev, [0001]). Yang relates to a vehicle, a display device for the vehicle, and a method for controlling the vehicle display device (see Yang, [0003]). Lee relates to a user interface apparatus of receiving a command from a user and outputting information about operation being performed, a vehicle having the user interface apparatus, and a method of controlling the vehicle (see Lee, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Maltsev as modified by Yang, to provide the benefit of having the navigation information element comprises a navigation map being displayed across the first region, the second region, and the third region, as disclosed in Lee, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of permitting the drive to keep their gaze forward when manipulating or checking the user interface, thus improving safety (see at least Lee, [0010]).
As per claim 17, similar to claim 7, the combination of Maltsev and Yang discloses all of the limitations of claim 11, as shown above. But, neither Maltsev nor Yang explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Lee:
wherein the additional information element comprises at least one of an application menu, a display setting menu, or a navigation settings menu (see at least Lee, [0161]; [0182]).
Maltsev, Yang and Lee are analogous art to claim 17 because they in the same field of in-vehicle infotainment systems. Maltsev relates to a vehicle display (see Maltsev, [0001]). Yang relates to a vehicle, a display device for the vehicle, and a method for controlling the vehicle display device (see Yang, [0003]). Lee relates to a user interface apparatus of receiving a command from a user and outputting information about operation being performed, a vehicle having the user interface apparatus, and a method of controlling the vehicle (see Lee, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Maltsev as modified by Yang, to provide the benefit of having the additional information element comprise at least one of an application menu, a display setting menu, or a navigation settings menu, as disclosed in Lee, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of permitting the drive to keep their gaze forward when manipulating or checking the user interface, thus improving safety (see at least Lee, [0010]).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maltsev, Yang and Lee as applied to claims 5 and 15 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0231453 to Colosky et al. (hereafter Colosky).
As per claim 6, the combination of Maltsev, Yang and Lee discloses all of the limitations of claim 5, as shown above. But, neither Maltsev, Yang nor Lee explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Colosky:
wherein the navigation information element further comprises a vehicle location information element indicating a current location of the vehicle (see at least Colosky, fig. 3, showing tractor icon 96 and current implement position graphic 100 <interpreted as the vehicle location information element indicating a current location of the vehicle>; [0039]; [0048]), and
wherein the controller is further configured to control the display device to display, in the third region and based on the additional information element being displayed in the third region, the navigation map, the vehicle location information element, and path information element (see at least Colosky, fig. 3 showing the future position implement graphic 102 and connecting line graphic 126 <interpreted as path information> and 96 and 100 <interpreted as the vehicle location information>; [0043]).
Maltsev, Yang, Lee and Colosky are analogous art to claim 6 because they in the same field of in-vehicle infotainment systems. Maltsev relates to a vehicle display (see Maltsev, [0001]). Yang relates to a vehicle, a display device for the vehicle, and a method for controlling the vehicle display device (see Yang, [0003]). Lee relates to a user interface apparatus of receiving a command from a user and outputting information about operation being performed, a vehicle having the user interface apparatus, and a method of controlling the vehicle (see Lee, [0002]). Colosky relates to work vehicle display systems and methods for generating map displays including automatic section control lookahead symbology and other related graphics (see at least Colosky, [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Maltsev, as modified by Yang and Lee, to provide the benefit of having the additional information element comprise at least one of an application menu, a display setting menu, or a navigation settings menu, as disclosed in Colosky, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of preventing pronounced changes in direction or speed (see Colosky, [0021]).
As per claim 16, similar to claim 6, the combination of Maltsev, Yang and Lee discloses all of the limitations of claim 15, as shown above. But, neither Maltsev, Yang nor Lee explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Colosky:
wherein the navigation information element further comprises a vehicle location information element indicating a current location of the vehicle (see at least Colosky, fig. 3, showing tractor icon 96 and current implement position graphic 100 <interpreted as the vehicle location information element indicating a current location of the vehicle>; [0039]; [0048]), and
wherein the controller is further configured to control the display device to display, in the third region and based on the additional information element being displayed in the third region, the navigation map, the vehicle location information element, and path information element (see at least Colosky, fig. 3 showing the future position implement graphic 102 and connecting line graphic 126 <interpreted as path information> and 96 and 100 <interpreted as the vehicle location information>; [0043]).
Maltsev, Yang, Lee and Colosky are analogous art to claim 16 because they in the same field of in-vehicle infotainment systems. Maltsev relates to a vehicle display (see Maltsev, [0001]). Yang relates to a vehicle, a display device for the vehicle, and a method for controlling the vehicle display device (see Yang, [0003]). Lee relates to a user interface apparatus of receiving a command from a user and outputting information about operation being performed, a vehicle having the user interface apparatus, and a method of controlling the vehicle (see Lee, [0002]). Colosky relates to work vehicle display systems and methods for generating map displays including automatic section control lookahead symbology and other related graphics (see at least Colosky, [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Maltsev, as modified by Yang and Lee, to provide the benefit of having the additional information element comprise at least one of an application menu, a display setting menu, or a navigation settings menu, as disclosed in Colosky, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of preventing pronounced changes in direction or speed (see Colosky, [0021]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maltsev and Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0309556 to Tsay et al. (hereafter Tsay).
As per claim 9, the combination of Maltsev and Yang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as show above. But, neither Maltsev nor Yang explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Tsay:
wherein the controller is further configured to control the display device to display a wide-format screen spanning the first region, the second region, and the third region (see at least Tsay, Fig. 2, showing an elongated display 208 <interpreted as a wide format screen>; [0023] disclosing that the elongated display 208 is configured to be divided to provide multiple views and different types of information, such as, but not limited to, navigation, messaging, videos, audio and video communication, music, and others; [0031]; [0032] disclosing that FIG. 4 is a screenshot illustrating a view 400 of an exemplary user interface 402 with points of interest. In the exemplary embodiment the user interface 402 is displayed on display screen 128 (shown in FIG. 1), for example elongated display 208 (shown in FIG. 2); [0033] disclosing that when an application is open, such as the navigation application, the area of the display screen 128 that is dedicated to that application is divisible into three regions 404, 406, and 408 <interpreted as first, second and third regions>).
Maltsev, Yang and Tsay are analogous art to claim 9 because they in the same field of in-vehicle infotainment systems. Maltsev relates to a vehicle display (see Maltsev, [0001]). Yang relates to a vehicle, a display device for the vehicle, and a method for controlling the vehicle display device (see Yang, [0003]). Tsay relates to controlling a user interface to facilitate a user interacting with points of interest (see at least Tsay, [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Maltsev, as modified by Yang, to provide the benefit of controlling the display device to display a wide-format screen spanning the first region, the second region, and the third region, as disclosed in Tsay, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of reducing an amount of time that the user's attention is deviated from actively driving (see at least Tsay, [0002]).
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maltsev, Yang as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Lee and Colosky.
As per claim 10, the combination of Maltsev and Yang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Yang further discloses the following limitation:
... (1) ... , ... (2) ..., and wherein the additional information element comprises a menu information element including at least one of a destination setting, phone projection, voice recording, phone connection, or 3D map setup (see at least Yang, [0129] disclosing with regard to Fig. 7 <showing phone projection in a5 (auxiliary information)> that, if the reversing assistance application is first executed, execution of the conversation application may be interrupted. In this case, if the user receives a phone call from another party, the visual interface related to the auxiliary information (a4) displayed in the auxiliary display region, i.e., the visual interface related to the navigation application, may be displayed in the main display region. The auxiliary information related to the visual interface (m5) displayed in the main display region, i.e., the auxiliary information (a5) related to the conversation application, may be displayed in the auxiliary display region.). But, neither Maltsev nor Yang explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Lee:
(1) wherein the controller is further configured to control the display device to display a navigation map in a background of the first region, the second region, and the third region (similar to claim 5, see at least Lee, Fig. 10A and 10B, showing C1, C1 and B1 B2 <interpreted as the first, second and third regions>; [0215]; [0218]), ... . But, neither Maltsev, Yang nor Lee explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Colosky:
(2) wherein the third information element comprises an icon indicating a location of the vehicle on the navigation map (similar to claim 6, see at least Colosky, see at least Colosky, fig. 3, showing tractor icon 96 and current implement position graphic 100 <interpreted as the icon indicating the location of the vehicle > ; [0039]; [0048]).
Maltsev, Yang, Lee and Colosky are analogous art to claim 10 because they in the same field of in-vehicle infotainment systems. Maltsev relates to a vehicle display (see Maltsev, [0001]). Yang relates to a vehicle, a display device for the vehicle, and a method for controlling the vehicle display device (see Yang, [0003]). Lee relates to a user interface apparatus of receiving a command from a user and outputting information about operation being performed, a vehicle having the user interface apparatus, and a method of controlling the vehicle (see Lee, [0002]). Colosky relates to work vehicle display systems and methods for generating map displays including automatic section control lookahead symbology and other related graphics (see at least Colosky, [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Maltsev as modified by Yang, to provide the benefit of (1) controlling the display device to display a navigation map in a background of the first region, the second region, and the third region, as disclosed in Lee, with a reasonable expectoration of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of permitting the drive to keep their gaze forward when manipulating or checking the user interface, thus improving safety (see at least Lee, [0010]). And, if would be further obvious to have modified the combination of Maltsev and Lee to provide the benefit of (2) having the third information element comprises an icon indicating a location of the vehicle on the navigation map, as disclosed in Colosky, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of preventing pronounced changes in direction or speed (see Colosky, [0021]).
As per claim 19, similar to claim 10, the combination of Maltsev and Yang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, neither Maltsev nor Yang explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Lee:
displaying, via the device, a navigation map in a background of the first region, the second region, and the third region (similar to claim 5, see at least Lee, Fig. 10A and 10B, showing C1, C1 and B1 B2 <interpreted as the first, second and third regions>; [0215]; [0218]), ... . But, neither Maltsev, Yang nor Lee explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Colosky:
wherein the third information element comprises an icon indicating a location of the vehicle on the navigation map (similar to claim 6, see at least Colosky, see at least Colosky, fig. 3, showing tractor icon 96 and current implement position graphic 100 <interpreted as the icon indicating the location of the vehicle > ; [0039]; [0048]).
Maltsev, Yang, Lee and Colosky are analogous art to claim 19 because they in the same field of in-vehicle infotainment systems. Maltsev relates to a vehicle display (see Maltsev, [0001]). Yang relates to a vehicle, a display device for the vehicle, and a method for controlling the vehicle display device (see Yang, [0003]). Lee relates to a user interface apparatus of receiving a command from a user and outputting information about operation being performed, a vehicle having the user interface apparatus, and a method of controlling the vehicle (see Lee, [0002]). Colosky relates to work vehicle display systems and methods for generating map displays including automatic section control lookahead symbology and other related graphics (see at least Colosky, [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Maltsev, as modified by Yang, to provide the benefit of controlling the display device to display a navigation map in a background of the first region, the second region, and the third region, as disclosed in Lee, with a reasonable expectoration of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of permitting the drive to keep their gaze forward when manipulating or checking the user interface, thus improving safety (see at least Lee, [0010]). And, further modifying the combination of Maltsev and Lee to provide the benefit of having the third information element comprises an icon indicating a location of the vehicle on the navigation map, as disclosed in Colosky, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of preventing pronounced changes in direction or speed (see Colosky, [0021]).
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maltsev and Yang as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Tsay and U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0024312 to Kim et al. (hereafter Kim).
As per claim 18, similar to claim 9, the combination of Maltsev and Yang discloses all of the limitations of claim 11, as show above. But, neither Maltsev nor Yang explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Tsay:
wherein the controller is further configured to control the display device to display a wide-format screen spanning the first region, the second region, and the third region (see at least Tsay, Fig. 2, showing an elongated display 208 <interpreted as a wide format screen>; [0023] disclosing that the elongated display 208 is configured to be divided to provide multiple views and different types of information, such as, but not limited to, navigation, messaging, videos, audio and video communication, music, and others; [0031]; [0032] disclosing that FIG. 4 is a screenshot illustrating a view 400 of an exemplary user interface 402 with points of interest. In the exemplary embodiment the user interface 402 is displayed on display screen 128 (shown in FIG. 1), for example elongated display 208 (shown in FIG. 2); [0033] disclosing that when an application is open, such as the navigation application, the area of the display screen 128 that is dedicated to that application is divisible into three regions 404, 406, and 408 <interpreted as first, second and third regions>) ... . But, neither Maltsev, Yang nor Tsay explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Kim:
wherein the wide-format screen extends from a left edge of a driver-side compartment to a right edge of a passenger-side compartment, based on the driver-side compartment being positioned at a left side of the vehicle, or from a right edge of the driver-side compartment to a left edge of the passenger-side compartment, based on the driver-side compartment being positioned at a right side of the vehicle (see at least Kim, Fig. 2a, showing display 200; Fig. 2b; [0046]-[0048])
Maltsev, Yang, Tsay and Kim are analogous art to claim 18 because they in the same field of in-vehicle infotainment systems. Maltsev relates to a vehicle display (see Maltsev, [0001]). Yang relates to a vehicle, a display device for the vehicle, and a method for controlling the vehicle display device (see Yang, [0003]). Tsay relates to controlling a user interface to facilitate a user interacting with points of interest (see at least Tsay, [0001]). Kim relates to an apparatus and method that support a function operation screen and an information providing screen according to rotation (landscape/portrait mode) of a mobile terminal mounted on a steering wheel and capable of providing a user experience to facilitate function manipulation and information recognition according to the rotation of the mobile terminal and a state of a screen (see Kim, [0005]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Maltsev, as modified by Yang, to provide the benefit of controlling the display device to display a wide-format screen spanning the first region, the second region, and the third region, as disclosed in Tsay, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of reducing an amount of time that the user's attention is deviated from actively driving (see at least Tsay, [0002]). And further to provide the benefit of having the wide-format screen extend from a left edge of a driver-side compartment to a right edge of a passenger-side compartment, based on the driver-side being a left side of the vehicle, or from a right edge of the driver-side compartment to a left edge of the passenger-side compartment, based on the driver-side being a right side of the vehicle, as disclosed in Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would improve the driver and passenger experience by providing the larger display.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maltsev and Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Colosky .
As per claim 20, the combination of Maltsev and Yang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Yang further discloses the following limitations:
wherein a portion of the display device comprises a touch input interface (see at least Yang, [0104] disclosing that (see Fig 6 a-f) if a touch panel is applied to the vehicle display device, the user touches the touch panel in such a manner that the auxiliary information (a1 to a7) displayed on the auxiliary display region can be changed to other information. In addition, the user may also change content of the auxiliary information (a1 to a7). ; [0119] disclosing that with regard to FIG. 6A, under the condition that the visual interface (m1) of the sound playback application is displayed in the main display region and the auxiliary information (a2) related to the air-conditioner control application is displayed in the auxiliary display region, if the user manipulates various input units 213, 214, 221, 222, 232-234 embedded in the vehicle or conducts a swipe gesture on the touch panel, or if the user selects a desired function by touching a setup button of the screen using the input units 213, 214, 221, 222, 232-234, the visual interface (m1) of the sound playback application is extended so that the extended visual interface may be displayed on both of the main display region and the auxiliary display region. In this case, not only the legacy display part (m11) but also the additional part (m12) related to the sound playback application (e.g., various selection menus related to sound playback) may be further displayed. ) and
wherein the portion of the display device corresponds to the third region (see at least Yang, Fig. 7 showing first and third regions a and n; [0127]-[0129]), and
wherein the additional information element comprises a plurality of menu items selectable by a user input via the touch input interface (see at least Gomes Yang, [0121] disclosing with regard to Fig. 6 a-f, that instead of auxiliary information (a2) related to the air-conditioner control application, a lower menu (i.e., a sub menu) regarding the application corresponding to a focus-moved image may also be displayed as the auxiliary information (m32) in the auxiliary display region. In other words, the selection screen image (m3) may be extended to the auxiliary display region. If the visual interface (m3) is extended in the same manner as described above, an additional interface different from the visual interface (m3), for example, the upper bar (b1), may also be extended as shown in (b2)), and
wherein the controller is configured to, based on a determination to display the additional information element in the third region in replacement of the displayed third information element (as cited in claim 1, see at least Yang, Fig. 7, [0-127]-[0129]);
modify the first information element and the third information element (as cited in claim 1, see at least Yang, Fig. 7, [0-127]-[0129]); and
control the display device to display, in the first region, a combined image of the modified first information element and the modified third information element (as cited in claim 1, see at least Yang, Fig. 7, [0-127]-[0129]) ... . But, neither Maltsev nor Yang explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Gomes Chang:
wherein the combined image of the modified first information element and the modified third information element indicates a navigation map, position information of the vehicle on the navigation map, and a navigation path for the vehicle (see at least Colosky, fig. 3, showing tractor icon 96 and current implement position graphic 100 <interpreted as the vehicle location information element indicating a current location of the vehicle> ; [0039]; [0048]; fig. 3 showing the future position implement graphic 102 and connecting line graphic 126 <interpreted as path information> and 96 and 100 <interpreted as the vehicle location information> ; [0043]).
Maltsev, Yang, and Colosky are analogous art to claim 20 because they in the same field of in-vehicle infotainment systems. Maltsev relates to a vehicle display (see Maltsev, [0001]). Yang relates to a vehicle, a display device for the vehicle, and a method for controlling the vehicle display device (see Yang, [0003]). Colosky relates to work vehicle display systems and methods for generating map displays including automatic section control lookahead symbology and other related graphics (see at least Colosky, [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Maltsev, as modified by Yang, to provide the benefit of having the combined image of the modified first information element and the modified third information element indicates a navigation map, position information of the vehicle on the navigation map, and a navigation path for the vehicle, as disclosed in Colosky, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving the usability of external applications from operating in parallel (see Comes Chang, [0003], [0004]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0159481 to You et al. (hereafter You), see Fig. 14, Fig. 15 showing a display with first, second and third regions; and see at least [0192]-[0196].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M. BRADY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 4;30 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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
PATRICK M. BRADY III
Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/PATRICK M BRADY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights