DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3-6 have been canceled. Claims 11-12 have been added. Claims 2 and 7-12 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 10-12 is objected to because of the following informalities: In particular, claim 10 recites “a device configured to switch off the electronic display or a membrane arranged over the electronic display and configured fade out the display of the information on the electronic display …”. However it should recite “a device configured to switch off the electronic display or a membrane arranged over the electronic display and configured to fade out the display of the information on the electronic display …” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 11-12 have the same issue due to dependency.
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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dawson et al. (“Dawson”, US 2010/0179878 A1, on the record) in view of Lanham (US 2008/0030427 A1, on the record) and Brubaker et al. (“Brubaker”, CN 109311433 B, on the record). 1) Regarding claim 2, Dawson disclose a device (Fig. 1: processor portion 106) configured to cover or switch off information displayed on an outer surface of a vehicle (Figs. 3-6). As per the limitation responsive to determining that a present situation of the vehicle deviates from a first state. Dawson discloses and illustrates, in ¶56 with reference to Fig. 3, the concept of using a license plate processing system to determine other vehicle velocity corresponding to the other vehicle approaching a vehicle configured with an applied/integrated display which causes the display surface to display content corresponding to the detecting of the vehicle approaching the display. While, Dawson does not specify the vehicle approach condition causes deviation from a first state. In the same art, Lanham discloses, in ¶43 with reference to Fig. 6A-B, the concept of altering displayed content to provide visual braking indication to an approaching object when the vehicle displaying the displayed advertisement content is braking (which can be interpreted as a deviation from a first state related to motion). At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of altering displayed content to provide visual braking indication to an approaching object when the vehicle displaying the displayed advertisement content is braking, with the motivation to enhance content display features of the system. As per the limitation wherein a membrane is arranged over the outer surface provided with the information, wherein the membrane is transparent in the first state and is configured to become untransparent by applying a voltage. In the art of using display, Brubaker discloses, in abstract; pages 22, 29 with reference to Figs. 12, 20C, the concept of configuring transparent thin film transistor (“TFT”: element 2002 corresponding to membrane) to the outer surface of a vehicle and overlaid on a display (corresponding to an electronic device) to control displayed content states of a display. Take notice that Brubaker discloses on page 22 that the display component 2002 has a transparent photochromic layer (e.g., TFT) from the vehicle surface toward the observer, which in response to ambient ultraviolet light or open state light blocking polarizer, then the OLEO/TFT flexible display panel 2005 (emphasis added, hence the display portion 2002 covers the flexible display panel, as illustrated in Fig. 20C). Brubaker further discloses, on pages 21-22, the concept of adjusting transparency according to the applied voltage to transition the display between multiple display states either open-state or a block-state as a design option. At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate , the concept of configuring transparent TFT to the outer surface of a vehicle and overlaid on a display to control displayed content states of a display, and the concept of adjusting transparency according to the applied voltage to transition the display between multiple display states, with the motivation to enhance the display features of the system. 2) Regarding claim 12 the method of claim 2, wherein it is determined that the present situation of the vehicle deviates from the first state based on: receipt of a switch-off command by a backend (Lanham: Fig. 6B with regard to a braking condition corresponding to a backend command), the vehicle driving significantly more slowly than a current speed limit (Lanham: Fig. 6B with regard to a braking condition, which can involve coming to a complete stop) or than other traffic participants in the surroundings and when there is no traffic jam present, an accident is recognized, police intervention is recognized, or other traffic participants are sounding their horns.
Claim(s) 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dawson in view of Lanham and Brubaker, and in further view of Li (CN 118991611 A, on the record) and Chen (US 20120194755 A1). 1) Regarding claim 7, Dawson, Lanham and Brubaker with the same motivation as presented in the rejection of claim 2 teach a method for operating a device for covering or switching off information displayed on an electronic display (Brubaker: Fig. 20 flexible display panel 2005) arranged on an outer surface of a vehicle (Brubaker: Figs. 20A & 20C), the method comprising: As per the limitation determining that a present situation of the vehicle deviates from a first state; and switching off the electronic display or fading out the display of the information on the electronic display by removing a voltage applied to a membrane arranged over electronic display responsive to determining that the present situation deviates from the first state so that the information displayed on the electronic display is hidden from view. Brubaker discloses, on pages 21-22; Figs. 20C, the concept of applying voltage to create an open-state condition of display or vice versa creating an off-state by applying voltage as alternative solutions, hence in a design choice arrangement of applying voltage to create an open state once the voltage is taking away a off-state will be assumed blocking displayed content. As indicated by Chen, ¶62 with reference to Figs. 6A-B. Also take notice that Brubaker discloses on page 22 that the display component 2002 has a transparent photochromic layer (e.g., TFT) from the vehicle surface toward the observer, which in response to ambient ultraviolet light or open state light blocking polarizer, then the OLEO/TFT flexible display panel 2005 (emphasis added, hence the display portion 2002 covers the flexible display panel, as illustrated in Fig. 20C) Lanham discloses changing displayed information based on safety priority condition, see claim 2 with regard to altering the displayed content to indicate braking condition to an approaching vehicle. In the art of altering displayed content, Li discloses, on page 15, the concept of determining lower priority of displayed content and then hiding/blocking the content accordingly. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate, the concept of determining lower priority displayed content and then hiding/blocking the content according to creating an off-state blocking condition of the display content by removing applied voltage, with the motivation to enhance the displayed content control feature of the system. 2) Regarding claim 8 the method of claim 7, further comprising: detecting, using surroundings sensors of the vehicle (Dawson: ¶56; Fig. 3), surroundings of the vehicle (Dawson: Fig. 3); and amalgamating data (the examiner interprets amalgamating data to be surrounding sensed data) detected using the surroundings sensors (Dawson discloses, in abstract; ¶¶4, 35-38, 41, 43-46, 57 detecting a target vehicle moving at a velocity, image detection and GPS signalling), wherein the determination that the present situation deviates from the first state is based at least on the amalgamated data (Dawson with regard to Fig. 3 illustrating detection of an approaching vehicle). 3) Regarding claim 9 the method of claim 7, wherein it is determined that the present situation of the vehicle deviates from the first state based on: receipt of a switch-off command by a backend (Lanham: Fig. 6B with regard to a braking condition corresponding to a backend command), the vehicle driving significantly more slowly than a current speed limit (Lanham: Fig. 6B with regard to a braking condition, which can involve coming to a complete stop) or than other traffic participants in the surroundings and when there is no traffic jam present, an accident is recognized, police intervention is recognized, or other traffic participants are sounding their horns. 4) Regarding claim 10, Dawson, Lanham and Brubaker with the same motivation to combine as presented in the rejection of claims 2 and 7 teach a vehicle (Dawson: ¶56; Fig. 3; Lanham: Figs. 6A-B) comprising: at least one outer surface (Dawson: Fig. 3; Lanham: Brubaker: page 22; Figs. 12 & 20A & 20C) and arranged on the at least one outer surface ; and an electronic display configured to display and arranged on the at least one outer surface (Brubaker: page 22; Figs. 20A & 20C); and a device configured to switch off the electronic display or a membrane arranged over the electronic display and configured fade out the display of the information on the electronic display so that the information displayed on the electronic display is hidden from view responsive to determining that a present situation of the vehicle meets at least one predetermined condition (see analysis of the rejection of claim 7). 5) Regarding claim 11 the vehicle of claim 10, wherein the at least one predetermined condition is at least one of: receipt of a switch-off command by a backend, the vehicle driving significantly more slowly than a current speed limit or than other traffic participants in the surroundings and when there is no traffic jam present, an accident is recognized, police intervention is recognized, and other traffic participants are sounding their horns (see analysis of the rejection of claim 9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 00/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Argument(s): Applicant argues that the applied prior art did not properly address the limitation "wherein a membrane is arranged over the outer surface provided with the information, wherein the membrane is transparent in the first state and is configured to become untransparent by applying a voltage", as the applicant argues that pages 21-22 of Brubaker, used to address the concept of applying voltage to a membrane, references the electric control surface 2016 which is illustrated in Fig. 20B, and further referenced to Fig. 20C did not address the limitation because Fig. 20B illustrates element 2016 under element 2014 (quarter wavelength retardation film) which is not the display panel 2005. Page 22 clearly states that element 2002 of Fig. 20C has a transparent photochromic layer 2016 from the vehicle surface toward the observer. Fig. 20C clearly illustrates 2002 on the outer surface display panel 2005. The Brubaker reference was used in an obvious rejection, in which the examiner directed attention to disclosure of Brubaker to provide evidence of obviousness. Brubaker cited disclosure clearly and reasonably provided evidence to addressed the limitation. However, due to the petition decision granted on 12/11/2025 concerning the examiner’s pre-mature Final rejection dated 11/17/2025, the examiner is withdrawing the Final and applying a new Non-Final rejection. For full details see action above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHICO A FOXX whose telephone number is (571)272-5530. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 M-F.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
CHICO A. FOXX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2684
/CHICO A FOXX/Examiner, Art Unit 2685