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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response the Office Action Response dated March 12, 2026. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination. Of these claims, claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the new features not being disclosed or taught by Uhm and Kitano, respectively, are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an interface unit” and “a control unit,” as recited in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In looking at the Specification, “an interface unit” comprises a user interface to receive user commands (e.g. see para 0052), and “a control unit” comprises a suitable software and hardware for performing algorithms and control of a display panel (e.g. see Fig. 3 and para 0053).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0349098, to Uhm, in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,724,317, to Kitano et al. (hereinafter Kitano), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0144184, to Ouyang et al. (hereinafter Ouyang), and in further view of U.S. Patent No. 11,351,892, to Roy.
As per Claim 1, Uhm discloses a transparent display apparatus disposed inside a vehicle (e.g. see Abstract, Figs. 1, 3b and 9, and para 0073 and 0095, wherein a driver assistance apparatus 100 is provided including a display unit 210 having a transparent flexible display 211), the transparent display apparatus comprising: a transparent display panel configured to transmit light from a first surface to a second surface (e.g. see para 0113, wherein the transparent flexible display may comprise any one of numerous systems for transmitting viewable light to a surface); a … part coupled to one end of the transparent display panel… (e.g. see para 0130-0132, wherein a connector 232 is connected to the transparent flexible display); an anchoring part fixed to a ceiling of the vehicle (e.g. paras 0130, wherein a housing is provided configured for attaching the transparent flexible display to a ceiling of the vehicle which would require suitable frame and fasteners (i.e. anchoring part)), wherein the anchoring part includes a motor coupled to at least a portion of the … part …(e.g. see Fig. 3a-4b, and para 0130, wherein the housing includes drive unit 230 connected to the transparent flexible display to move the display to a retracted and deployed position); an interface unit mounted inside the transparent display panel and/or the vehicle to receive a user command (e.g. see Fig. 2, and paras 0073 and 0115, wherein the driver assist apparatus includes a user input unit 125 to transmits commands to an interface unit 160); and a control unit operatively connected to the interface unit and the motor, and configured to perform control so that the transparent display panel is switched to a plurality of modes based on a user command received from the interface unit (e.g. see paras 0084-0085, wherein through the user input the drive unit deploys or retracts the transparent flexible display (i.e. plurality of modes)).
Uhm fails to disclose that the part comprises a rotation part and that the motor is configured to rotate the rotation part about a longitudinal direction of the rotation part. However, Kitano teaches a vehicle display device configured to be rotatably driven by a motor about an axis between a stowed and deployed state (e.g. see Figs. 4 and 6, and col. 7, lines 41-62). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the display system of Uhm to include rotational deployment for the purpose of reducing guide means, parts and cost for deployment of a display.
Uhm fails to disclose a rotation part disposed to cross the transparent display panel. However, Ouyang teaches a rotating component 101 of a display 1, the rotating component comprising a shaft, extending across a width of the display (e.g. see Fig. 6 and paras 0037-0039). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the display system of Uhm to include rotational deployment for the purpose of reducing guide means, parts and cost for deployment of a display.
Uhm fails to disclose wherein the transparent display panel is configured to rotate about a longitudinal direction of the rotation part to selectively screen a glass sunroof of the vehicle. However, Roy teaches a transparent visor-like display screen 105 and a sunroof display screen 150, both of which are configured for rotation to selectively screen a glass sunroof of a vehicle 10 (e.g. see Figs. 5-7 and col. 6, line 13, to col. 8, line 20). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the display system of Uhm to include rotational deployment for the purpose of reducing guide means, parts and cost for deployment of a display, as well as deployment of items before a transparent window to add information to the surrounding environment.
As per Claim 2, Uhm, as modified by Kitano, Ouyang and Roy, teaches the features of claim 1, and Uhm further discloses wherein the interface unit is configured to interwork with an application of a mobile terminal using wireless communication and to receive the user command from the application (e.g. see Fig. 2 and paras 0261-0264, wherein the driver assistance apparatus receives control signals form a mobile terminal 250).
As per Claim 3, Uhm, as modified by Kitano, Ouyang and Roy, teaches the features of claim 1, and Uhm further discloses wherein the interface unit has a speech recognition function and is configured to receive a user command using the speech recognition function (e.g. see Fig. 14 and para 0029, wherein the user interacts with the display using voice commands).
As per Claim 4, Uhm, as modified by Kitano, Ouyang and Roy, teaches the features of claim 1, and Uhm further discloses wherein the control unit performs control so that the transparent display panel comes to a first state in which the transparent display panel is disposed parallel to the ceiling of the vehicle or a second state in which the transparent display panel is disposed perpendicular to the ceiling of the vehicle, by driving the motor to rotate the rotation part (e.g. see Figs. 3a-3b of Uhm, disclosing the parallel and vertical positions, and Kitano, which facilitates said transition using a ration part).
As per Claim 5, Uhm, as modified by Kitano, Ouyang and Roy, teaches the features of claim 4, and Uhm further discloses wherein the control unit performs control so that the transparent display panel comes to the first state in response that the transparent display panel is in the second state in a case where the vehicle stalls (e.g. see claim 39, wherein the display retracts upon detection of a collision (i.e. stall)).
As per Claim 6, Uhm, as modified by Kitano, Ouyang and Roy, teaches the features of claim 4, and Uhm further discloses wherein the plurality of modes includes: a first mode in which the transparent display panel displays a video or image (e.g. see Fig. 11a); a second mode in which the transparent display panel maintains a transparent state (e.g. see Fig. 9); and a third mode in which the transparent display panel displays the video or the image generated based on an environment of the vehicle (e.g. see Fig. 11a and para 0247, wherein the transparent flexible display displays image received from camera 121).
As per Claim 7, Uhm, as modified by Kitano, Ouyang and Roy, teaches the features of claim 6, and Uhm further discloses wherein the control unit performs control so that the transparent display panel comes to the transparent state, in response that the transparent display panel satisfies all of following conditions: the transparent display panel is in the second state and in either the first mode or the second mode, and the vehicle is in a backward traveling state (e.g. see Fig. 11a and paras 0121 and 0192, cameras are deployed in the rear of the vehicle and presents images of surrounding conditions).
As per Claim 8, Uhm, as modified by Kitano, Ouyang and Roy, teaches the features of claim 6, and Uhm further discloses further comprising: a sensor unit electrically connected to the control unit, wherein the sensor unit includes a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor (e.g. see para 0092), and an illumination sensor (e.g. see para 0518), and wherein the sensor unit is configured to receive weather (e.g. see para 0518) and time information from a navigation system mounted on the vehicle (e.g. see para 0423).
As per Claim 9, Uhm, as modified by Kitano, Ouyang and Roy, teaches the features of claim 8, and Uhm further discloses wherein the first mode includes an environmental information mode in which information received from the sensor unit is displayed on at least a portion of the transparent display panel while the video or the image is displayed on the transparent display panel (e.g. see Fig. 11a).
As per Claim 10, Uhm, as modified by Kitano, Ouyang and Roy, teaches the features of claim 8, and Uhm further discloses wherein the third mode includes an automatic environment mode in which the video or the image is generated based on an information received from the sensor unit and the generated video or image is displayed on the transparent display panel (e.g. see Fig. 11c, wherein traffic information is display, which would continually change and be automatically displayed).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 James M. McPherson whose telephone number is (313) 446-6543. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 5PM Mon-Fri Eastern Alt Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Flynn can be reached on 571 272-9855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES M MCPHERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663B
Prosecution Insights