DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to applicant’s amendment/response filed on 02/03/2026, which has been entered and made of record. Claims 9-21 are pending in the application. The claim interpretation to claims 14-15 is maintained.
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) 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fattal et al. (US 20220413203) in view of Banski et al. (US 20160012795).
Regarding claim 9, Fattal discloses A method for adjusting an internal screen of a vehicle provided for a front passenger of the vehicle (Fattal, figs.6&7, “[0086] The mode-switchable privacy display system may be employed as a display system in a variety of applications including, but not limited to, in a smartphone, a tablet computer, or laptop computer, as well as an information/entertainment display system in a vehicle such as an automobile or airplane. For example, when used in an automobile, the first view zone may direct the private image toward a passenger and the second view zone may direct the static image toward a driver of the automobile during the privacy mode. [0087] FIG. 6 illustrates a block diagram of a mode-switchable privacy display system 200 in an example, according to an embodiment consistent with the principles described herein”),
the method comprising: displaying, on the internal screen from a driver's perspective, an alternative, the alternative being at least one static display element that differs from the at least one display element originally provided for display (Fattal, “[0086] when used in an automobile, the first view zone may direct the private image toward a passenger and the second view zone may direct the static image toward a driver of the automobile during the privacy mode. The static image may be logo or similar static image, for example. Alternatively during the shared mode, the shared image may be provided to both the driver and the passenger, according to some embodiments. [0097] In some embodiments (as illustrated in FIG. 6), the mode-switchable privacy display system 200 further comprises a mode controller 250. The mode controller 250 is configured to selectively activate either the broad-angle backlight 210 to provide the broad-angle emitted light during the shared mode or the privacy backlight 220 to provide the directional emitted light along with the static display layer 240 to provide the static image during the privacy mode”. Therefore, when the mode controller selectively switches from the shared mode to the privacy mode, a static image is display from the driver’s perspective, and the static image is different from the shared image originally provided from display).
On the other hand, Fattal fails to explicitly disclose but Lancioni discloses analyzing at least one display element, the at least one display element being originally provided for display on the internal screen (Banski, “[0025] After capturing the output from the phone, the in-vehicle information system analyzes the content of the output and optionally transforms the output to a suitable format for presentation with the output devices in the in-vehicle information system (block 116). [0027] The modification of the content in the output can include an analysis of the content.”);
determining whether the at least one display element is dynamic and/or provided only for the front passenger; determining a driving situation of the vehicle; and based on the determination of whether the at least one display element is dynamic and the determination of the driving situation of the vehicle, displaying, on the internal screen from a driver's perspective, an alternative, the alternative being at least one static display element that differs from the at least one display element originally provided for display (Banski, “[0024] Referring again to FIG. 1, for some forms of content, the output from the mobile electronic device is simplified to reduce the distraction to the driver in the car (block 112). For example, animations or other elements that can distract the driver are filtered from the output when the car is in motion. In another configuration, the video and animations are displayed through LCD screens in the car that are within the view of passengers, but not in the view of the driver. [0030] the in-vehicle information system performs additional transformations on the content of the output to remove items from the display in the vehicle. The removal of some display items reduces distraction for the driver and other occupants in the vehicle. In one embodiment, the in-vehicle information system limits the frequency of content updates from phone. This strategy would also prevent output of e.g. video while driving. [0032] the in-vehicle information system temporarily delays the output of content while the vehicle is in motion. The in-vehicle information system stores content with a lower relevance in a memory without displaying the content to reduce driver distraction while the vehicle is in motion. When the in-vehicle information system identifies that the vehicle has come to a stop, then the lower relevance content are displayed using the output devices in the vehicle.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Banski and Fattal, to include all limitations of claim 9. That is, applying the filtering animations for the dirver of Banski to the display for the driver of Fattal. The motivation/ suggestion would have been The system supports the driver in using the mobile electronic device while driving and to minimize the potential distraction of using the mobile electronic device (Banski, [0009]).
Regarding claim(s) 14, it is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim(s) 1. Particularly, claim 14 further discloses a computing unit. Fattal discloses “[0020] Uses of unilateral backlighting and unilateral multiview displays described herein include, but are not limited to, mobile telephones (e.g., smart phones), watches, tablet computes, mobile computers (e.g., laptop computers), personal computers and computer monitors, automobile display consoles, cameras displays, and various other mobile as well as substantially non-mobile display applications and devices”.
Regarding claim 10, Fattal in view of Banski discloses The method of claim 9.
On the other hand, Fattal fails to explicitly disclose but Banski discloses wherein the analyzing the at least one display element originally provided includes analyzing based on graphics (Banski, “[0027] The modification of the content in the output can include an analysis of the content. In one embodiment, a processor in the phone or in the in-vehicle information system analyzes graphics and audio instructions that are used to generate the output”). The same motivation of claim 9 applies here.
Regarding claim 12, Fattal in view of Banski discloses The method of claim 9.
On the other hand, Fattal fails to explicitly disclose but Banski discloses displaying the at least one display element originally provided to the front passenger (Banski, “[0024] Referring again to FIG. 1, for some forms of content, the output from the mobile electronic device is simplified to reduce the distraction to the driver in the car (block 112). For example, animations or other elements that can distract the driver are filtered from the output when the car is in motion. In another configuration, the video and animations are displayed through LCD screens in the car that are within the view of passengers, but not in the view of the driver”). The same motivation of claim 9 applies here.
Regarding claim 13, Fattal in view of Banski discloses The method of claim 9.
On the other hand, Fattal fails to explicitly disclose but Banski discloses based on determining the driving situation of the vehicle as stationary, displaying the at least one display element originally provided (Banski, “[0032] the in-vehicle information system temporarily delays the output of content while the vehicle is in motion. The in-vehicle information system stores content with a lower relevance in a memory without displaying the content to reduce driver distraction while the vehicle is in motion. When the in-vehicle information system identifies that the vehicle has come to a stop, then the lower relevance content are displayed using the output devices in the vehicle”). The same motivation of claim 9 applies here.
Regarding claim 16, Fattal in view of Banski discloses The system of claim 14.
Fattal further discloses wherein the screen is arranged in front of a seat for the front passenger with respect to a forward direction of travel of the vehicle (Fattal, fig.7A/B, “[0098] During the private mode, the mode-switchable privacy display system 200 is configured to provide a private image 200a to passenger in a first view zone I and a static image to a driver in a second view zone II, as illustrated in FIG. 7A. Further, the mode-switchable privacy display system 200 is configured to provide a shared image 200c to both the passenger in the first view zone I and the driver in the second view zone II, as illustrated in FIG. 7B”).
Regarding claim 17, Fattal in view of Banski discloses The method of claim 9.
Fattal further discloses displaying as the at least one static display element at least one of a monochrome surface, a colorful surface, or an image (Fattal, figs.6&7, “[0086] For example, when used in an automobile, the first view zone may direct the private image toward a passenger and the second view zone may direct the static image toward a driver of the automobile during the privacy mode. [0087] The mode-switchable privacy display system 200 illustrated in FIG. 6 is configured to provide both the private image to the first view zone I and the static image to the second view zone II during a private mode”).
Regarding claim 18, Fattal in view of Banski discloses The method of claim 9.
On the other hand, Fattal fails to explicitly disclose but Banski discloses displaying for the driver at least one display element originally provided, in response to determining the driving situation of the vehicle as stationary (Banski, “[0032] the in-vehicle information system temporarily delays the output of content while the vehicle is in motion. The in-vehicle information system stores content with a lower relevance in a memory without displaying the content to reduce driver distraction while the vehicle is in motion. When the in-vehicle information system identifies that the vehicle has come to a stop, then the lower relevance content are displayed using the output devices in the vehicle”). The same motivation of claim 9 applies here.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fattal et al. (US 20220413203) in view of Banski et al. (US 20160012795), and further in view of Lancioni et al. (US 20180082068).
Regarding claim 11, Fattal in view of Banski discloses The method of claim 9.
On the other hand, Fattal in view of Banski fails to explicitly disclose but Lancioni discloses wherein the analyzing the at least one display element originally provided includes analyzing on a type of software-supported window in which the at least one display element is displayed (Lancioni, “[0022] the data boundaries detection module 318 analyzes text (e.g., data input 312) entered by a user through a keyboard associated with electronic display 322 (e.g. smartphone soft keyboard). Once PII is detected in the data input 312, the rendering of the privacy filter over the area of display 322 where the PII is to be displayed (e.g., according to an application associated with the PII is triggered. [0032] If the current location is determined to be a private location then, at operation 512, boundaries of an area of electronic display 322 where the detected data is to be displayed are detected (e.g., a text box defined by application associated with detected data)”. Therefore, the text box corresponds to the software-supported window).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Lancioni into the combination of Banski and Fattal, to include all limitations of claim 11. That is, applying the text data analysis of Lancioni to the display for the driver of Fattal and Banski. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to provide the dynamic application of privacy filters that obscure only a portion of the display based on a private nature of a displayed content and a detected location context of the electronic display (Lancioni, [0001]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fattal et al. (US 20220413203) in view of Banski et al. (US 20160012795), and further in view of Sharma et al. (US 20220207852).
Regarding claim 15, Fattal in view of Banski discloses The system of claim 14.
On the other hand, Fattal in view of Banski fails to explicitly disclose but Sharma discloses wherein the computing unit is configured to analyze the at least one display element originally provided for display using artificial intelligence (Sharma, “[0069] For instance, the obstruction identification model 400 may input binned pixels corresponding to obstructions into a machine learning model which classifies the pixels as corresponding to static obstructions (i.e., obstructions that do not move such as rocks, plants, buildings, etc.) or dynamic obstructions (i.e., obstructions that do move such as people, cows, dogs, vehicles, etc.). The obstruction identification model 400 bins pixels in each set of image data and compares locations of binned pixels in each set of image data to determine if obstructions corresponding to the binned pixels are static or dynamic”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Sharma into the combination of Banski and Fattal, to include all limitations of claim 15. That is, adding the object classification based on machine learning of Sharma to the display system of Fattal and Banski. The motivation/ suggestion would have been The DNN may label each obstruction and, based on the labels, classify the obstructions as static or dynamic (Sharma, [0070]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fattal et al. (US 20220413203) in view of Banski et al. (US 20160012795), and further in view of Denoue et al. (US 20100123908).
Regarding claim 19, Fattal in view of Banski discloses The method of claim 9.
On the other hand, Fattal in view of Banski fails to explicitly disclose but Denoue discloses determining if the internal screen displays a plurality of display elements, wherein the plurality of display elements comprise first display elements comprising dynamic content and second display elements comprising static content; and replacing the first display elements with static content (Denoue, “[0049] FIG. 1 shows a flow chart for a method of identifying and removing or replacing an animated object or link with a static image, according to aspects of the present invention. [0050] The method begins at 110. At 120, a document is obtained and may be rendered for being displayed to a user. At 130 animated embedded items and/or links are identified in the document being displayed to the user. At 140, the animated embedded items and/or links are removed or lifted from the document. At 150, the lifted embedded item or link may be replaced by an identifier and a static image, corresponding to the lifted embedded item, in a preview version of the document being displayed to the user. At 160, the document including the identifier and the static image is displayed to the user”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Denoue into the combination of Banski and Fattal, to include all limitations of claim 19. That is, applying the relacing animated items with a static image of Denoue to the internal screen system of Fattal and Banski. The motivation/ suggestion would have been The animation is identified and removed from documents presented on a device of limited resources or replaced with a substitute including an identifier, in order not to slow down the display (Denoue, [0010]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fattal et al. (US 20220413203) in view of Banski et al. (US 20160012795), and further in view of KNITTL et al. (US 20210023948).
Regarding claim 20, Fattal in view of Banski discloses The method of claim 9.
On the other hand, Fattal in view of Banski fails to explicitly disclose but KNITTL discloses detecting and determining a position of at least one eye of the driver; and detecting and determining a position of at least one eye of the front passenger of the vehicle (KNITTL, claim 18, “wherein the sensor is configured to sense respective positions of the eyes of a driver and a front-seat passenger, and wherein the controller is configured to actuate the at least one of the first and second displays compensates for the parallax effect for the driver and the front seat passenger”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined KNITTL into the combination of Banski and Fattal, to include all limitations of claim 20. That is, adding the sensing the positions of the eyes of a driver and a front-seat passenger of KNITTL to the internal screen system of Fattal and Banski. The motivation/ suggestion would have been the controller is configured to actuate the at least one of the first and second displays compensates for the parallax effect for the driver and the front seat passenger (KNITTL, claim 18).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fattal et al. (US 20220413203) in view of Banski et al. (US 20160012795), and further in view of Roundtree (US 20200349289).
Regarding claim 21, Fattal in view of Banski discloses The method of claim 9, wherein display of information for the front passenger on the internal screen, has been disclosed.
On the other hand, Fattal in view of Banski fails to explicitly disclose but Roundtree discloses in response to determining display of confidential information for the front user on the internal screen, displaying on the internal screen, an alternative static display element for the front user (Roundtree, “[0174] When confidential information is detected, it may automatically be determined what type it is (such as via the keyword associated to the webform field), the end user account referenced to determine a placeholder and a note made on a URL that requested it (e.g., nordstroms.com), and the placeholder inserted in place of the confidential information according to the end user's desired account preferences. [0175] when confidential information is detected, the disclosed tools may first display a warning to the end user and offer the end user the choice to replace the confidential information or not by displaying option buttons or other tools”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Roundtree into the combination of Banski and Fattal, to include all limitations of claim 21. That is, applying the replacing confidential information of Roundtree to the internal screen for the front-seat passenger of Fattal and Banski. The motivation/ suggestion would have been tools to efficiently protect privacy for end users and others on the Internet when communicating with others (Roundtree, [0064]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 GRACE Q LI whose telephone number is (571)270-0497. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am-5:00 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, DEVONA FAULK can be reached at 571-272-7515. 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.
/GRACE Q LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2618 4/28/2026
Prosecution Insights