DETAILED ACTION
This final action is in response to the reply filed 22 December 2024, which was in response to the non-final action, dated 22 September 2024.
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 Amendments
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim 18 has been amended and claim 20 has been newly added.
With regard to the claim objections to claims 6 and 18 (pgs. 2-3, action), the examiner notes that claim 6 and 18 were erroneously objected to and thus the objection is withdrawn.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 1-4, 8 and 11-14 (pgs. 3-9, Action), applicant contends that the cited reference Maltsev “does not move and display any windows 130 and 140 to another area”, and thus does not disclose the limitation “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” (pgs. 9, Reply). Respectfully, this contention is not persuasive.
Applicant’s contention does not support the interpretation of the aforementioned limitation in independent claims 1 and 11. Specifically the examiner does not equate the recitation “control” as “mov[ing]”. Maltsev at [0060] as originally cited as teaching this limitation. Maltsev further supports this teaching at [0059] disclosing multiple areas <interpreted as regions> for displaying. It discloses these areas are “allocated for displaying non-safety critical information in non-safety critical information portions of a vehicle display”. Maltsev further discloses that “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 portion”, which is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation as control based on an additional information element being displayed in the third region (the multiple areas being 120 and 160). Thus, Maltsev discloses the aforementioned limitation, as discussed below.
Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 1-4, 8 and 11-14 is maintained, as discussed below.
The rejection of claims 5-7, 9, 10 and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is also maintained, based on the discussion above.
Newly added claim 20 necessitated additional searching and consideration of grounds of rejection. Thus, claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, in view of Maltsev, Colosky and Gomes Chang, as discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 8 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0337901 to Maltsev et al. (hereafter Maltsev).
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).
As per claim 2, 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).
As per claim 3, 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, 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, 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]).
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] ).
As per claim 12, similar to claim 2, 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, 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]).
As per claim 14, similar to claim 4, 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]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 5, 7, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maltsev 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, Maltsev discloses all of the limitations of claim 2, as shown above. But, Maltsev does not 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 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]). 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, 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, Maltsev discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, Maltsev does not 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 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]). 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, 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, Maltsev discloses all of the limitations of claim 12, as shown above. But, Maltsev does not 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 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]). 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, 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, discloses all of the limitations of claim 11, as shown above. But, Maltsev does not 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 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]). 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, 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 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 and Lee discloses all of the limitations of claim 5, as shown above. But, neither Maltsev 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, 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]). 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 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 Lee, 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 and Lee discloses all of the limitations of claim 15, as shown above. But, neither Maltsev 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, 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]). 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 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 Lee, 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 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, Maltsev discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as show above. But, Maltsev does not 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 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]). 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, in 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 as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Lee and Colosky.
As per claim 10, Maltsev discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, Maltsev does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Lee:
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 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, 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]). 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, 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]).
As per claim 19, similar to claim 10, Maltsev discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, Maltsev does not 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 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, 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]). 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, 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 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, Maltsev discloses all of the limitations of claim 11, as show above. But, Maltsev does not 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 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 and Tsay 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]). 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, in 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 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Colosky and U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0210131 to Gomes Chang et al. (hereafter Gomes Chang).
As per claim 20, Maltsev discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, Maltsev does not explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Gomes Chang:
wherein a portion of the display device comprises a touch input interface (see at least Gomes Chang, Fig. 3, showing first and second tough panels 80 and 90; [0022]; [0054] disclosing that the first controller 38 causes a first touch panel 80 (an example of a “first display”) or a second touch panel 90 (an example of a “second display”) among a plurality of displays to display a menu screen on which one or more application program icons are displayed, causes the second touch panel 90 to display a screen associated with associated information when associated information associated with application programs related to at least some icons of the displayed icons is input in a state in which the menu screen has been displayed by the second touch panel 90, and causes a predetermined touch panel among the plurality of displays to display a screen associated with the associated information when the associated information is input in a state in which the menu screen has not been displayed by any one of the plurality of displays ), and
wherein the portion of the display device corresponds to the third region (see at least Gomes Chang, Fig. 1, showing vehicle information display 100 <interpreted as the second region>, first tough panel 80 <interpreted as the first region> and second touch panel 90 <interpreted as the first region>; [0055] ),
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 Chang, Fig. 3, showing menus B1 and B2; [0069] disclosing that in the second display region 80AR-2 ... a prescribed content image is displayed. In the first display region 80AR-1 ... no prescribed content image is displayed and only the first operation buttons B1 may be displayed; See Fig. 8-10 and 12), 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 (see at least Gomes Chang, [0118] disclosing that FIG. 12 is a diagram showing an example of a scene in which the vehicle-side cooperation application 52 changes display on the display in accordance with an operation. When the occupant operates an application operation button B3 in a state C8 of FIG. 12 connected to the terminal device 10 in a display control device 30, application menu content is displayed as shown in a state C9 of FIG. 12):
modify the first information element and the third information element (see at least Gomes Chang, Fig. 12, [0118]); 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 (see at least Gomes Chang, Fig. 12, [0118]) ... . But, neither Maltsev nor Gomes Chang explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Colosky:
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, Gomes Chang 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]). Comes Chang relates to a display device and a display method (see at least Comes Chang [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, to provide the benefit of having a portion of the display device comprise a touch input interface, having the portion of the display device correspond to the third region, having the additional information element comprise a plurality of menu items selectable by a user input via the touch input interface, and, based on a determination to display the additional information element in the third region in replacement of the displayed third information element, modifying the first information element and the third information element and controlling 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 disclosed in Comes Chang, and 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].
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 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