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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Wc1 in Figure 5b. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7, 15, 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the graphic relating to the guidance in the one of the second sized area" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15, 16 recites the limitation "the first sized area" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the second sized area" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the second sized area" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the area in which the at least one of the second sized areas is reserved" in 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Helm (US 2017/0300216 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Helm teaches a travel monitoring system of a vehicle, comprising:
a communication unit that receives a plurality of travel data items of a first vehicle (paragraph [0018] – describes display items such as weather and navigation which can be considered travel data items); and
a control unit that controls a display device to display a monitoring screen indicating the plurality of travel data items (paragraphs [0018], [0031]), wherein
the control unit reserves a plurality of first sized areas and a plurality of second sized areas in the monitoring screen (Figs. 2-6, paragraph [0022]),
each of the plurality of first sized areas has a first size in a first direction, which is one of a vertical direction and a horizontal direction, and has a second size in a second direction, which is the other of the vertical direction and the horizontal direction (Figs. 2-6 paragraph [0020]),
each of the plurality of second sized areas has a third size in the first direction and has a fourth size in the second direction (Figs. 2-6, paragraph [0020]),
the first size corresponds to an integer multiple of the third size, the integer being greater than one (Figs. 2-4, 6, paragraphs [0020], [0021]), and
the control unit displays a first travel data item in one of the plurality of first sized areas, the first travel data item being one of the plurality of travel data items, and displays a second travel data item or a guidance indicating a type of the second travel data item in one of the plurality of second sized areas, the second travel data item being another one of the plurality of travel data items (Helm Figs 2,3,5 paragraphs [0018], [0020] nav system & weather).
Method claim 17 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 1. Therefore, the method claim 17 corresponds to the apparatus claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
CRM claim 18 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 1. Therefore, the CRM claim 18 corresponds to the apparatus claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding claim 2, Helm teaches the travel monitoring system of the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the second size corresponds to an integer multiple of the fourth size, the integer being greater than one (Fig 3, #62 & #68, paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 3, Helm teaches the travel monitoring system of the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the second size corresponds to the fourth size (Helm Fig 3, #62 & #78, paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 4, Helm teaches the travel monitoring system of the vehicle according to claim 3, wherein the first direction is a vertical direction, and the second direction is a horizontal direction (Helm Fig 3, #62 & #78).
Regarding claim 6, Helm teaches the travel monitoring system of the vehicle according to claim 1,
wherein the control unit reserves the plurality of first sized areas, the plurality of second sized areas, and a plurality of third sized areas in the monitoring screen,
each of the plurality of third sized areas has a fifth size in the first direction and a sixth size in the second direction, and the third size corresponds to an integer multiple of the fifth size and/or the fourth size corresponds to an integer multiple of the sixth size, the integer being greater than one (Fig. 3, paragraphs [0020]-[0022]).
Regarding claim 7, Helm teaches the travel monitoring system of the vehicle according to claim 1,
wherein the control unit displays text and a graphic relating to the first travel data item in the one of the plurality of first sized areas, and
the control unit displays one of the text and the graphic relating to the guidance in the one of the second sized areas, the guidance representing the second travel data item or a type of the second travel data item (Fig 3 #78 and #62, paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 13, Helm teaches the travel monitoring system of the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the control unit displays the first travel data item in the one of the plurality of first sized areas in a first display condition, and displays the first travel data item in one of the plurality of second sized areas in a second display condition. (Figs. 1-7, paragraphs [0018],[0019]).
Regarding claim 14, Helm teaches the travel monitoring system of the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the control unit determines whether a travel condition of the first vehicle satisfies a predetermined condition, and if the travel condition of the first vehicle satisfies the predetermined condition, changes a layout of the plurality of first sized areas and the plurality of second sized areas (paragraphs [0023], [0031]).
Regarding claim 15, Helm teaches the travel monitoring system of the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the control unit reserves at least one of the plurality of second sized areas in an area having a size corresponding to the first sized area (Figs. 2 & 5), and the control unit reserves a layout adjustment area in the area in which the at least one of the second sized areas is reserved, the layout adjustment area being an area in which the plurality of travel data items are not displayed (Fig. 4, paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 16, the travel monitoring system of the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the control unit displays an input unit that has a size corresponding to the first sized area or the second sized area and receives an operation of a monitoring person, and upon detecting an operation on the input unit, the control unit transmits a command according to the operation to the first vehicle (Figs. 1-8, paragraphs [0018], [0019]).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helm in view of Graham (US 2004/0098671 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Helm teaches the travel monitoring system of the vehicle according to claim 3. Helm fails to teach wherein the first direction is a horizontal direction, and the second direction is a vertical direction.
However, Graham teaches wherein the first direction is a horizontal direction, and the second direction is a vertical direction (paragraphs [0196], [0216], Figs. 10-13 #304, #306). Claim 5 describes a display layout where the first direction of claim 3 is horizontal and the second is vertical, meaning that the size in the vertical direction of the first and second sized areas is the same and the sizes in the horizontal direction are different, one being an integer multiple of the other. Graham teaches two different areas with equivalent size in the vertical direction and different size in the horizontal direction, analogous to what is claimed in claim 5.
Graham is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of display methods. Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Graham with Helm to allow for a greater number of display arrangements, improve presentation of data, and improve the user experience
Claim 8, 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan, G., Zhang, Z., & Shang Guan, W. (2008). Research and design of GIS in Vehicle Monitoring System. 2008 International Conference on Internet Computing in Science and Engineering, 223–228. https://doi.org/10.1109/icicse.2008.98 (Hereinafter “Yuan”).
Regarding claim 8, Helm teaches the travel monitoring system of the vehicle according to claim 1. Helm fails to teach wherein
the control unit reserves a first vehicle travel data area and a second vehicle travel data area in the monitoring screen, the plurality of travel data items of the first vehicle being displayed in the first vehicle travel data area, the plurality of travel data items of a second vehicle being displayed in the second vehicle travel data area, and
each of the first vehicle travel data area and the second vehicle travel data area includes the plurality of first sized areas and the plurality of second sized areas.
However Yuan teaches wherein the control unit reserves a first vehicle travel data area and a second vehicle travel data area in the monitoring screen, the plurality of travel data items of the first vehicle being displayed in the first vehicle travel data area, the plurality of travel data items of a second vehicle being displayed in the second vehicle travel data area (introduction, section 3.2 points 4-6, section 4.3), and
each of the first vehicle travel data area and the second vehicle travel data area includes the plurality of first sized areas and the plurality of second sized areas (Figure 3, section 4.1). Yuan describes a vehicle monitoring system. This vehicle monitoring system gathers travel data form multiple vehicles and uses this data to display and determine traffic conditions. The displaying of this data includes a function allowing a user to select a vehicle to center the map around. While Yuan does not reserve an area for a first vehicle’s travel data and an area for a second vehicle’s travel data, it does reserve a first and second area and collects and displays travel data of multiple vehicles. Yuan is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of vehicle monitoring. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Yuan with the teachings of Helm and integrate the travel data of multiple vehicles into the display system of Helm to improve vehicle security, vehicle management (introduction) and automatization of navigation systems (section 4.3.2).
Regarding claim 10, Helm in view of Yuan teaches the travel monitoring system of the vehicle according to claim 8. Helm further teaches wherein the control unit determines whether a travel condition of the first vehicle satisfies a predetermined condition based on the plurality of travel data items, and, if the first vehicle satisfies the predetermined condition, enlarges the first vehicle travel data area. (paragraphs [0023], [0031]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helm in view of Iseri (US 2013/0100162 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Helm teaches the travel monitoring system of the vehicle according to claim 1,
Helm fails to teach wherein the control unit obtains a layout change instruction and changes relative positions of the plurality of first sized areas and the plurality of second sized areas in the monitoring screen based on the layout change instruction.
However, Iseri teaches wherein the control unit obtains a layout change instruction and changes relative positions of the plurality of first sized areas and the plurality of second sized areas in the monitoring screen based on the layout change instruction (Fig 4, 6, 7, 8, paragraphs [0011], [0013], [0066], [0069], [0073], [0107]). Iseri describes adjusting a zoomed in portion of an image being displayed in display area. This display area has a position and size which can be adjusted by a user. This is analogous to a layout change instruction which changes relative position of a first sized area. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the adjustment of a display area form Iseri with the display arrangement of Helm. By adding this adjustment ability to Helm, a user can customize their display which improves the user experience.
Claims 9, 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helm in view of Yuan and in further view of Iseri.
Regarding claim 9, Helm in view of Yuan teaches the travel monitoring system of the vehicle according to claim 8. Helm in view of Yuan fails to teach wherein the control unit changes relative positions of the plurality of first sized areas and the plurality of second sized areas in each of the first vehicle travel data area and the second vehicle travel data area in accordance with a layout change instruction
However, Iseri teaches wherein the control unit changes relative positions of the plurality of first sized areas and the plurality of second sized areas in each of the first vehicle travel data area and the second vehicle travel data area in accordance with a layout change instruction (Fig 4, 6, 7, 8, paragraphs [0011], [0013], [0066], [0069], [0073], [0107]). Iseri describes adjusting a zoomed in portion of an image being displayed in display area. This display area has a position and size which can be adjusted by a user. This is analogous to a layout change instruction which changes relative position of a first sized area. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the adjustment of a display area form Iseri with the display arrangement of Helm and the multi-vehicle monitoring of Yuan. By adding this adjustment ability to Helm in view of Yuan, a user can customize their display which improves the user experience.
Regarding claim 12, Helm in view of Yuan and in further view of Iseri teaches the travel monitoring system of the vehicle according to claim 10. Iseri further teaches wherein the layout change instruction includes information on a size and a position of an area in which each travel data item is displayed (paragraph [0066], [0069], [0107]). As described above with regard to claim 9, Iseri describes adjusting a zoomed in portion of an image being displayed in display area. This display area has a position and size which can be adjusted by a user. This is analogous to a layout change instruction includes information on a size and a position of an area. The motivation to combine would have been the same as described in claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang, X., & Wang, M. (2010). Integrating GIS, GPS Technologies for Designing Vehicle Monitor System. 2010 International Conference on Machine Vision and Human-Machine Interface, 416–418. https://doi.org/10.1109/mvhi.2010.188
Febonio (US 2010/0057338 A1)
Ishizaki (US 2015/0365625 A1)
Nishida (US 2019/0130876 A1)
Di Pietro (US 11,060,882 B2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aidan W McCoy whose telephone number is (571)272-5935. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at (571)272-7773. 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.
/AIDAN W MCCOY/Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/TAMMY PAIGE GODDARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611