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 . The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. 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 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.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 13 January 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of FRESLE. See below for detailed rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-10, 12-15, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20240289498-A1 to Kondapi et al. (“Kondapi”) in view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20160070344-A1 to Gohl et al. (“Gohl”) in further view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication to FRESLE (“FRESLE”).
As to claim 1, Kondapi disclose(s) a display privacy system for a vehicle, the display privacy system comprising:
an imager system including at least one tracking camera; (Kondapi ; Fig. 2; camera(s) 214b )
a display configured to display content data and including the at least one tracking camera; (Kondapi ; Fig. 2; display 211)
and
a controller communicatively coupled with the imager system and the display, the controller including data processing hardware configured to execute a display privacy application, the display privacy application including an eye tracking function based on a gaze Kondapi ; Fig. 2; eye tracking)and being configured to alter the content data in response to image data gathered by the imager system at the at least one tracking camera at the display. (Kondapi ; Fig. 2; mitigation procedure, screen blurring, dimming, etc.; [0195])
Kondapi does not expressly disclose gaze time.
Gohl discloses gaze time. (Gohl; presence of eyes for a threshold period of time; [0007]; [0033])
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the gaze time of Gohl and the eye tracking of Kondapi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with eye tracking. Using the gaze time of Gohl would allow for the eye tracking of Kondapi to set a threshold for identifying a gaze.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Kondapi-Gohl does not expressly disclose a privacy index configured to measure a degree of privacy of an environment surrounding the display and a respective user, the display privacy application and alter the content data in response to the privacy index. (FRESLE; threat degree to the privacy of user; [0124] and modifying based on threat; [0026])
FRESLE discloses a privacy index configured to measure a degree of privacy of an environment surrounding the display and a respective user, the display privacy application and alter the content data in response to the privacy index. (FRESLE; threat degree to the privacy of user; [0124] and modifying based on threat; [0026])
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the gaze time of Kondapi-Gohl and the threat degree of FRESLE. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with eye tracking. Using the threat degree of FRESLE would allow for the eye tracking of Kondapi-Gohl to provide degrees of privacy.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 2, Kondapi-Gohl-FRESLE disclose(s) the display privacy system of Claim 1, wherein the display privacy application includes a proximity range (Kondapi ; distance; [0125];[0157]) and is configured to alter the content data based on the proximity range and the gaze time of a detected gaze. (Kondapi ; Fig. 2; mitigation procedure, screen blurring, dimming, etc.; [0195])
As to claim 3, Kondapi-Gohl-FRESLE disclose(s) the display privacy system of Claim 1, wherein the display privacy application includes a display alteration protocol. (Kondapi ; Fig. 2; mitigation procedure, screen blurring, dimming, etc.; [0195])
As to claim 4, Kondapi-Gohl-FRESLE disclose(s) the display privacy system of Claim 3, wherein the display alteration protocol includes one or more of an alert function, a dimming function, and a display change function. (Kondapi ; Fig. 2; mitigation procedure, screen blurring, dimming, etc.; [0195])
As to claim 5, Kondapi-Gohl-FRESLE disclose(s) the display privacy system of Claim 4, wherein the display change function includes an automatic display shift, the display alteration protocol being configured to execute the automatic display shift in response to a gaze detected by the eye tracking function of the display privacy application. (Kondapi ; Fig. 2; mitigation procedure, screen blurring, dimming, etc.; [0195]; dimming is a shift in brightness; also obfuscating a portion of the content; [0007] teaches shifting content)
As to claim 6, Kondapi-Gohl-FRESLE disclose(s) the display privacy system of Claim 1, wherein the display privacy application includes a privacy score. (Kondapi ; engagement score; [0127])
As to claim 8, Kondapi-Gohl-FRESLE disclose(s) the display privacy system of Claim 1, wherein the display privacy application includes user profiles and is configured to identify a user, based on the user profiles, via the imager system and the eye tracking function. (Gohl ;eye profile ; [0003];[0028])
As to claim 9, Kondapi-Gohl-FRESLE disclose(s) a computer-implemented method when executed by data processing hardware causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising:
executing, via the data processing hardware, an eye tracking function of a display privacy application; Kondapi ; Fig. 2; eye tracking)
detecting, via the eye tracking function, a gaze at a display; (Kondapi ; onlooker detected; [0186])
comparing, via the display privacy application, the detected gaze with one or more user profiles stored in memory hardware; (Gohl ;eye profile ; [0003];[0028])
executing, via the data processing hardware, a display alteration protocol of the display privacy application in response to the detected gaze; (Kondapi ; Fig. 2; mitigation procedure, screen blurring, dimming, etc.; [0195])
generating, via the display privacy application, a privacy index;
measuring, based on the privacy index, a degree of privacy of an environment surrounding the display; (FRESLE; threat degree to the privacy of user; [0124] and modifying based on threat; [0026])
and
altering, via the display alteration protocol, a content output of the display. (Kondapi ; Fig. 2; mitigation procedure, screen blurring, dimming, etc.; [0195]; dimming is a shift in brightness; also obfuscating a portion of the content; [0007] teaches shifting content)
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 1.
As to claim 10, Kondapi-Gohl-FRESLE disclose(s) the method of Claim 9, wherein executing the display privacy application includes alerting a user of the detected gaze. (Kondapi ; Fig. 10A & B; notification of content viewable by onlooker; [0181])
As to claim 12, Kondapi-Gohl-FRESLE disclose(s) the method of Claim 9, wherein altering the content output includes at least one of dimming the display, executing an alert function, and executing a display change function. (Kondapi ; Fig. 2; mitigation procedure, screen blurring, dimming, etc.; [0195])
As to claim 13, Kondapi-Gohl-FRESLE disclose(s) the method of Claim 12, wherein executing the display change function includes changing content data of the content output and displaying an alternate output at the display. (Kondapi ; Fig. 2; mitigation procedure, screen blurring, dimming, etc.; [0195]; dimming is a shift in brightness; also obfuscating a portion of the content; [0007] teaches shifting content)
As to claim 14, Kondapi-Gohl-FRESLE disclose(s) the method of Claim 9, further including generating, via the display privacy application, the privacy index includes generating the privacy index based on content data of the content output, the privacy index including a privacy score. (Kondapi ; engagement score; [0127])
As to claim 15, Kondapi-Gohl-FRESLE disclose(s) a display privacy system comprising:
data processing hardware;
and
memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations, the operations comprising:
executing, via the data processing hardware, an eye tracking function of a display privacy application stored in the memory hardware;
detecting, via the eye tracking function, a gaze at a display;
comparing, via the display privacy application, the detected gaze with one or more user profiles stored in the memory hardware;
executing, via the data processing hardware, a display alteration protocol of the display privacy application in response to the detected gaze;
generating, via the display privacy application, a privacy index;
measuring, based on the privacy index, a degree of privacy of an environment surrounding the display;
and
altering, via the display alteration protocol, a content output of the display.
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 1 and 9.
As to claim 18, Kondapi-Gohl-FRESLE disclose(s) the display privacy system of Claim 15, wherein altering the content output includes at least one of dimming the display, executing an alert function, and executing a display change function. (Kondapi ; Fig. 2; mitigation procedure, screen blurring, dimming, etc.; [0195]; dimming is a shift in brightness; also obfuscating a portion of the content; [0007] teaches shifting content)
As to claim 19, Kondapi-Gohl-FRESLE disclose(s) the display privacy system of Claim 18, wherein executing the display change function includes changing content data of the content output and displaying an alternate output at the display. (Kondapi ; Fig. 2; mitigation procedure, screen blurring, dimming, etc.; [0195]; dimming is a shift in brightness; also obfuscating a portion of the content; [0007] teaches shifting content)
As to claim 20, Kondapi-Gohl-FRESLE disclose(s) the display privacy system of Claim 15, further including generating, via the display privacy application, the privacy index includes generating the privacy index based on content data of the content output, the privacy index including a privacy score. (Kondapi ; engagement score; [0127])
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondapi-Gohl-FRESLE in view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20240064281 to Sharma et al. (“Sharma”).
As to claim 7, Kondapi-Gohl-FRESLE disclose(s) the display privacy system of Claim 1,
But does not expressly disclose wherein the display is a campfire display.
Sharma discloses wherein the display is a campfire display. (Sharma; Fig. 1)
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the campfire display of Sharma and the display of Kondapi-Gohl-FRESLE. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with displays. Using the campfire display of would allow for people to view the display from more directions.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondapi-Gohl-FRESLE in view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20250046169-A1 to Tarukawa et al. (“Tarukawa”).
As to claim 11, Kondapi-Gohl-FRESLE disclose(s) the method of Claim 10,
But does not expressly disclose wherein altering the content output includes issuing, via the display privacy application, a relocation recommendation.
Tarukawa discloses wherein altering the content output includes issuing, via the display privacy application, a relocation recommendation. (Tarukawa; warning to move away; [0042])
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the relocation recommendation of Tarukawa and the notifications of Kondapi-Gohl-FRESLE. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with warning users that are near displays. Using the moving warning as taught by Tarukawa would direct user to take a specific action instead of just an alerting.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 17, Kondapi-Gohl-FRESLE-Tarukawa disclose(s) the display privacy system of Claim 16, wherein altering the content output includes issuing, via the display privacy application, a relocation recommendation.
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 11.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondapi-Gohl-FRESLE in view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20170186303-A1 to O’Larte et al. (“O’Larte ”).
As to claim 16, Kondapi-Gohl-FRESLE disclose(s) the display privacy system of Claim 15, wherein executing the display privacy application includes alerting a user of the detected gaze. (Kondapi ; onlooker detected; [0186])
But does not expressly discloses issuing a notification corresponding to audio privacy.
O’Larte discloses alerting based on audio privacy. (O’Larte ;[0015])
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the audio privacy of O’Larte and the display privacy of Kondapi-Gohl-FRESLE. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with privacy. Using the audio privacy of O’Larte would alert users of onlookers that based on distance could also eavesdrop on conversations.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 extension fee 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 BRYAN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5606. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached on (571) 270-1684. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/BRYAN Y LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights