DETAILED ACTION
This FINAL action is in response to Application No. 18/687,118 filed 2/27/2024 which claims priority from PCT/IB2022/058187 filed 8/31/2022 and Provisional Application No. 63/239,160 filed 8/31/2021. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The amendment presented on 4/23/2026 which provides amendments to claims 1, 8, 9, 18, 37, 39, cancellation of claims 6, 10, 11, 40-43, and new claims 64-66 is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1-4, 7-9, 12-18, 37, 39, 44, and 64-66 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 18, and 37 have been considered, however, the amendment(s) to the claims necessitated a new consideration and search resulting in new prior art cited below.
Additionally, as shown below in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection, continuous changing of the display ratios does not appear supported by the specification. On the contrary, while the specification describes the sliding movement of the digital focus controller, the specification appears to describe only two display positions for two GUI components; 1/3rd and 2/3rd of the display. Therefore, it can be construed that Applicant’s own specification describes discrete display positions for the display regions in the same way the majority of Giannotti describes using the grid/cell layout.
It is also pertinent to note that Giannotti does suggest an embodiment including “resiz[ing] the simultaneously-displayed application interfaces freely without snapping the interfaces to the grid or otherwise binding the size/positions of the interfaces to the grid” at [0071]; however, whether the interfaces are continuously changed during the interaction with the resize control in this embodiment does not appear addressed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 12-18, 37, 39, 44, and 64-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly in claims 18 and 37), it appears “wherein shifting the boundary causes a continuous change in the first display ratio and the second display ratio such that an increase in a display area of the first GUI component correspondingly decreases a display area of the second GUI component, and an increase in a display area of the second GUI component correspondingly decreases a display area of the first GUI component” is not supported by the specification. Specifically, there does not appear to be a suggestion in the specification that shifting the boundary causes a continuous change in the first display ratio and the second display ratio. While the specification does describe that the “digital focus controller” does receive input that is a sliding movement, the specification does not describe the display of the GUI components to be continuously changed during the digital focus controller movement. The specification appears to only describe discrete display ratios/positions of 1/3rd and 2/3rd of the display for the GUI components (See Figures 7-13 and associated description). At most, [0122] states “[t]he movement of the digital focus controller may adjust or modify the first display ratio accordingly.” However, this is in the context of the previous sentence describing “[o]nce, the digital focus controller has been moved…” (i.e., the movement referred to is completed movement); this is not necessarily continuously updating the display ratio, especially because there is no other (intermediate) display ratio between two GUI components depicted, described, or suggested in the specification.
The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of their parent claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-9, 12-18, 37, 39, and 64-66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarek et al. (US 2017/0334500 A1, from IDS received 2/27/2024, hereinafter “Jarek”), in view of Giannotti et al. (US 2018/0321843 A1, hereinafter “Giannotti”), and further in view of Ezaki et al. (US 2023/0017397 A1, with priority to JP 2019-228573 filed 12/18/2019, hereinafter “Ezaki”)
Regarding claim 1, Jarek teaches a virtual cockpit system for a recreational vehicle, the virtual cockpit system comprising a display, a controller and a processor, the display being configured for presenting information to an operator of the recreational vehicle, the controller being configured for allowing interactions between the operator and the virtual cockpit system. More specifically, systems and methods to present information to recreational vehicle riders and to provide customizable visual information to recreational vehicle riders (Jarek, abstract). In one example, operator interface 150 includes a touch screen display and interface controller 156 interprets various types of touches to the touch screen display as inputs and controls the content displayed on touch screen display (Jarek, [0086]).
the processor being configured for executing instructions which upon being executed cause: displaying, on the display, a first graphical user interface (GUI) component representing a first set of information, the first set of information relating to operating conditions of the recreational vehicle. More specifically, Figures 9-11, 16-17, and 25-29 depict that the display can have multiple regions displaying different content. At least Figures 9, 11, 17, 18A, 18B, 19A, 19B, 20A, 20B, 21A, 21B, 28, and 29 depict that one of the regions can show vehicle data/operating conditions of the vehicle (Jarek, [0103]).
displaying, on the display, a second GUI component representing a second set of information, the second set of information relating to infotainment functionalities associated with the recreational vehicle. More specifically, at least Figures 9, 10, 17, 22A, 22B, 23, 24, 26, 27, and 29 depict that one of the regions can show vehicle infotainment functionalities (Jarek, [0103]). At least Figure 9, depicts a maps/navigation component on the right side and a vehicle operating conditions component on the left side.
However, Jarek may not explicitly teach every aspect of
upon receiving, from the controller, a first control command based on an interaction of the operator with the display, modifying a first display ratio defining a portion of the display occupied by the first GUI component and a second display ratio defining another portion of the display occupied by the second GUI component; wherein modifying the first display ratio and the second display ratio comprises reallocating display space between the first GUI component and the second GUI component by shifting a boundary between the first GUI component and the second GUI component; wherein the interaction of the operator with the display comprises a request to shift the boundary to resize the first GUI component and the second GUI component relative to one another;.
Giannotti discloses the sizes and the positional relationship of a plurality of divided regions provided in a display are changed in a more convenient manner in a vehicle (Giannotti, abstract, Figure 1). The divided regions can include infotainment applications or vehicle information/controlling applications (Giannotti, [0016]). Resizing control 306 is displayed that can be dragged to resize the displayed regions simultaneously (Giannotti, [0046]-[0048], at least Figures 3A and 3B, 5, 6A-6D, and 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Jarek and Giannotti that a virtual cockpit system for a vehicle that displays at least an infotainment component and a vehicle operations component simultaneously would include simultaneously modifying the display sizes of the components in response to an operator request via display interaction. With Jarek and Giannotti disclosing simultaneously displaying regions within a vehicle display that include infotainment components and vehicle components, and with Giannotti disclosing the ability to simultaneously resize the components by dragging a single user interface control in a direction, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a virtual cockpit system for a vehicle that displays at least an infotainment component and a vehicle operations component simultaneously would include simultaneously modifying the display sizes of the components in response to an operator request via display interaction in order to facilitate being able to display multiple components within a fixed screen size yet be able to prioritize viewability by adjusting the size of all displayed components with a single interaction all while minimizing the diverting of focus of operating the vehicle. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this virtual cockpit system for a vehicle that displays at least an infotainment component and a vehicle operations component simultaneously.
However, Jarek and Giannotti teach may not explicitly teach every aspect of
wherein shifting the boundary causes a continuous change in the first display ratio and the second display ratio such that an increase in a display area of the first GUI component correspondingly decreases a display area of the second GUI component, and an increase in a display area of the second GUI component correspondingly decreases a display area of the first GUI component.
Ezaki discloses a vehicle touch user interface that is partitioned into several display regions designated for controlling navigation, air-conditioning, audio video, telephone, etc. with buttons (“display objects”) for changing the settings for each (Ezaki, abstract, [0023]-[0025], [0069]). “When a user touches on and drags the specific display object displayed on the moving display region 212, the display control unit 124 moves a display position of the moving display region 212. Then, the display region setting unit 123 dynamically changes a size of each of the display regions 211 on the display screen in accordance with moving of the moving display region 212, and fixes a size of each of the display regions 211 when a user touches off from the moving display region 212 (Ezaki, [0070]).” This describes the continuous changing of the display ratios during a touch-drag gesture until a user releases the touch. Additionally, the boundaries are described as “freely” changed (Ezaki, [0085]). The fact that the changing of boundaries is described as performed “freely”, and that the display region sizes are dynamically changed during the touch-drag gesture means that Ezaki describes that “shifting the boundary causes a continuous change [in the display ratios]….”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Jarek and Giannotti with Ezaki that a virtual cockpit system for a vehicle that displays at least an infotainment component and a vehicle operations component simultaneously would include simultaneously, and continuously, modifying the display sizes of the components in response to an operator request via display interaction. With Jarek, Giannotti, and Ezaki disclosing simultaneously displaying regions within a vehicle display that include infotainment components and vehicle components, with Giannotti and Ezaki disclosing the ability to simultaneously resize the components by dragging a single user interface control in a direction, and with Ezaki additionally disclosing the “free” boundary shifting and the dynamically changing the display regions during the touch-drag gesture, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a virtual cockpit system for a vehicle that displays at least an infotainment component and a vehicle operations component simultaneously would include simultaneously, and continuously, modifying the display sizes of the components in response to an operator request via display interaction in order to allow a user to consider the allocation of display regions before finishing the input to change the display regions. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this virtual cockpit system for a vehicle that displays at least an infotainment component and a vehicle operations component simultaneously.
Regarding claim 2, Jarek and Giannotti with Ezaki teach the virtual cockpit system of claim 1, wherein the controller comprises a digital focus controller and the first control command is received further to the operator interacting with the digital focus controller. More specifically, the resizing control 306 (construed as the digital focus controller) is displayed that can be dragged to resize the displayed regions simultaneously (Giannotti, [0047]-[0048], at least Figures 3A and 3B, 5, 6A-6D, and 8; See also Ezaki, item 212, Figures 3A-3D).
Regarding claim 3, Jarek and Giannotti with Ezaki teach the virtual cockpit system of claim 2, wherein the digital focus controller is displayed as an intersection of the first GUI component and the second GUI component on the display and, a right movement of the digital focus controller, by the operator, causes to increase a length of the first GUI component and reduce a length of the second GUI component displayed on the display, and a left movement of the digital focus controller, by the operator, causes to reduce the length of the first GUI component and increase the length of the second GUI component displayed on the display. More specifically, the resizing control 306 is displayed that can be dragged to simultaneously resize the displayed regions simultaneously (Giannotti, [0019], [0046]-[0048], at least Figures 3A and 3B, 5, 6A-6D, and 8; See also Ezaki, item 212, Figures 3A-3D).
Regarding claim 4, Jarek and Giannotti with Ezaki suggest the virtual cockpit system of claim 1, wherein the controller comprises a physical focus controller and the first control command is received further to the operator interacting with the physical focus controller. With both Jarek and Giannotti disclosing displaying and configuring multiple components in a vehicle display including receiving inputs with both digital controls (touch screen display) and physical controls (buttons/switches/dials) (Jarek, [0102]; Giannotti, [0044]), with Giannotti disclosing the resizing control 306 (construed as a focus controller) which is used to configure the displayed components, and with Jarek additionally disclosing configuring the displayed components with touch input (digitally) but also with physical scroll buttons (Jarek, [0106], [0107] and [0109], items 322, 324, the combination of Jarek and Giannotti would suggest using the physical scroll buttons of Jarek as physical focus controllers; See also Ezaki, [0031], [0086], using a dial switch instead of touch panel).
Regarding claim 7, Jarek and Giannotti with Ezaki teach the virtual cockpit system of claim 1, wherein the modified first display ratio defines a first modified portion of the display being occupied by the first GUI component and the modified second display ratio defines a second modified portion of the display being occupied by the second GUI component. More specifically, at least Figures 3A, 3B, 5, 6A-6D, and 8 depict at least the modifying of the ratio of two components occupying a display (Gianotti, at least Figures 3A, 3B, 5, 6A-6D, and 8).
Regarding claim 8, Jarek and Giannotti with Ezaki suggest the virtual cockpit system of claim 1, wherein the first display ratio and the second display ratio together define that the first GUI component occupies one of a 2/3rd or 1/3rd portion of the display and the second GUI component occupies a remaining portion of the display. More specifically, the example grid of Figure 4 is a depiction of the control of the sizes of the components and is used to assist the resizing of said components via a snapping mechanism. The grid is 7x4, but it is suggested that all of the cells in the grid could be other sizes, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize results in a grids of different numbers of rows and columns (Giannotti, [0053]-[0056]). A grid divisible into thirds results in an option for first and second component occupying 2/3rd and 1/3rd portions of the display respectively.
Regarding claim 9, Jarek and Giannotti with Ezaki suggest the virtual cockpit system of claim 8, wherein the first display ratio and the second display ratio are modified such that the portion of the display occupied by the first GUI component and the portion of the display occupied by the second GUI component are interchanged. More specifically, the example grid of Figure 4 is a depiction of the control of the sizes of the components and is used to assist the resizing of said components via a snapping mechanism. The grid is 7x4, but it is suggested that all of the cells in the grid could be other sizes, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize results in a grids of different numbers of rows and columns (Giannotti, [0053]-[0056]). A grid divisible into thirds results in an option for first and second component occupying 2/3rd and 1/3rd portions of the display, respectively, that can be modified using the resizing control such that the first and second components would occupy 1/3rd and 2/3rd portions of the display respectively.
Regarding claim 12, Jarek and Giannotti with Ezaki teach the virtual cockpit system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, upon being executed by the processor in response to a second control command received from at least one of the controller and the display, cause updating of the second GUI component by representing a first infotainment functionality associated with the recreational vehicle. More specifically, there are controls to switch infotainment components between at least audio components, connected phone components, and maps/navigation (Jarek, [0108]-[0109], Figures 9, 16, 17, 22A, 22B, 23 and 24).
Regarding claim 13, Jarek and Giannotti with Ezaki teach the virtual cockpit system of claim 12, wherein the instructions, upon being executed by the processor in response to a third control command received from the controller, cause updating of the second GUI component by representing a second infotainment functionality in replacement of the first infotainment functionality associated with the recreational vehicle. More specifically, there are controls to switch infotainment components between at least audio components, connected phone components, and maps/navigation (Jarek, [0108]-[0109], Figures 9, 16, 17, 22A, 22B, 23 and 24).
Regarding claim 14, Jarek and Giannotti with Ezaki teach the virtual cockpit system of claim 13, wherein updating the second GUI component by representing the second infotainment functionality in replacement of the first infotainment functionality defines cycling through a carousel of possible infotainment functionalities for the operator. More specifically, there are controls to switch infotainment components between at least audio components, connected phone components, and maps/navigation. Figures 16 and 17 depict the swipe-able carousel-type controls for cycling through infotainment components in each region (Jarek, [0108]-[0109], Figures 9, 16, 17, 22A, 22B, 23 and 24).
Regarding claim 15, Jarek and Giannotti with Ezaki teach the virtual cockpit system of claim 13, wherein the controller comprises an applet switcher and the second control command and the third control command are received further to the operator interacting with the applet switcher. More specifically, left-hand trigger button 312 can be used to cycle through infotainment components sequentially (Jarek, [0131], Figures 8 and 30, item 312).
Regarding claim 16, Jarek and Giannotti with Ezaki suggests the virtual cockpit system of claim 15, wherein the applet switcher is configured to allow the operator to circle from the first infotainment functionality to the second infotainment functionality. More specifically, left-hand trigger button 312 can be used to cycle through infotainment components sequentially (Jarek, [0131], Figures 8 and 30, item 312).
Regarding claim 17, Jarek and Giannotti with Ezaki suggests the virtual cockpit system of claim 13, wherein the first infotainment functionality and the second infotainment functionality are customizable by the operator. More specifically, each of the regions 342 and 344 are customizable by the operator of the vehicle (Jarek, Figures 16-17). Comparing at least Figures 18A versus 18B, 19A versus 19B, 20A versus 20B, and 21A versus 21B, the layout and appearance of each component is customized differently; parts of the components such as instant mpg, gear indicator, heated grips, altitude, and heading have different layout or appearance. Additionally, the resizing of Giannotti is construable also providing customization to the function of the infotainment components as when an area is made bigger or smaller, the amount of detail/functionality is changed (Giannotti, at least Figures 6A-6D and 8).
Regarding claims 18 and 65, these claims recite a recreational vehicle comprising the virtual cockpit system of claims 1 and 2, therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Regarding claims 37 and 66, these claims recite a computer-implemented method performed by the virtual cockpit system of claims 1 and 2, therefore, the same rational of rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 39, Jarek and Giannotti with Ezaki teach the virtual cockpit system of claim 1, wherein the first set of information comprises at least one of a vehicle speed, fuel level, a battery state of charge, a vehicle range, and an engine speed of the recreational vehicle. More specifically, at least speed, fuel level, distance/range of remaining fuel, battery state, and rpm is information that can be displayed (Jarek, [0124], Fig At least Figures 9, 11, 17, 18A, 18B, 19A, 19B, 20A, 20B, 21A, 21B, 28, and 29).
Regarding claim 64, Jarek and Giannotti with Ezaki teach the virtual cockpit system of claim 1, wherein reallocation of display space is constrained such that the first GUI component remains visible with at least a minimum display area sufficient to present vehicle operating information required to be displayed during operation of the recreational vehicle, regardless of boundary position. More specifically, the effects of moving the resize control may be bound by the minimum and/or maximum overall sizes, lengths, and/or widths (Giannotti, [0055], [0058]). Additionally, a minimum size from which the size is not allowed to be reduced may be set for each of the display regions, or if remaining display objects within a region are not allowed to be removed, downsizing is stopped (Ezaki, [0083], [0130], [0134]).
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarek and Giannotti with Ezaki, and further in view of Kotter et al. (US 2016/0288643 A1, hereinafter “Kotter”).
Regarding claim 44, Jarek and Giannotti with Ezaki teach the virtual cockpit system of claim 1, however, may not explicitly teach every aspect of wherein the interaction of the operator with the display comprises sliding an element to a left edge of the display or a right edge of the display, and wherein modifying the second display ratio of the second GUI component comprises removing the second GUI component from the display.
Kotter discloses a display in a vehicle that will display two regions such that the boundary can be shifted resulting in modification of the ratio of the surface portions of the two regions (Kotter, abstract). The regions can display vehicle condition information as well as entertainment information (Kotter, [0022]). The tab elements at the boundary of the regions are touch-draggable. A given example division of the screen regions are 1/3rd and 2/3rd of the screen. Figures 3B and 3C appear to depict a modification switching the ratio of regions that occupy 1/3rd and 2/3rd of the screen. When a tab is moved to the edge of the screen, the associated regions are adjusted to remove a region so only one remains (Kotter, [0034], [0061], [0066]-[0067], [0070], Figures 2A-2I and 3A-3H).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Jarek, Giannotti, and Ezaki with Kotter that a virtual cockpit system for a vehicle that displays at least an infotainment component and a vehicle operations component simultaneously where the ratio that each component occupies the display is modified by moving an element would include that moving the element to an edge of a screen would result in removing one of the components. With Jarek, Giannotti, and Kotter disclosing simultaneously displaying regions within a vehicle display that include infotainment components and vehicle components, with Giannotti and Kotter disclosing that the ratio that each component occupies the display is modified by moving an element, and with Kotter additionally disclosing that moving the element to an edge of a screen would result in removing one of the components, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a virtual cockpit system for a vehicle that displays at least an infotainment component and a vehicle operations component simultaneously where the ratio that each component occupies the display is modified by moving an element would include that moving the element to an edge of a screen would result in removing one of the components in order to allow a vehicle operator to continue to use just one type of interaction for the modification of the size and display of components such that focus can be maintained on operating the vehicle. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this virtual cockpit system for a vehicle that displays at least an infotainment component and a vehicle operations component simultaneously.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Otsuka (US 2007/0222769 A1) – a vehicle display that is partitioned into resizable regions using touch gestures.
Morita (US 2021/0232271 A1) – a vehicle display that is partitioned into resizable regions using touch gestures.
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 PATRICK F RIEGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3625. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm, ET.
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571) 272-4057. 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 F RIEGLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights