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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 8-9, 12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2017/0124987) in view of Brown (US 2018/0149777), and further in view of Kurokawa (US 2018/0005588) and further in view of Surnilla et al. (US 2018/0096668).
Regarding claim 15:
Kim discloses:
A display unit (abstract: “display”), which is arranged in a vehicle interior with a surface (abstract: “interior part of the vehicle having the display”), comprising
a screen, integrated into the surface (paragraph 159: “hidden display”), with a controllable screen luminance for setting an original screen luminance (paragraph 204: “screen brightness”);
a transparent cover element with a cover element surface, which is two-dimensionally arranged in the viewing direction in front of the screen and by which the screen is at least partially covered (paragraph 170-171: “cover”), wherein the cover element surface is designed such that it simulates the surface at least in the viewing direction (paragraph 172: “the first hidden display 200a is not noticeable”); and
a control unit at least for controlling the screen luminance (paragraph 204)
Kim does not disclose:
“the control unit is further designed to
“(i) ascertain a correction term in dependence on a material of the cover element surface and/or on a luminance with respect to the cover element which corresponds to the ambient radiation incident on the cover element,
“(ii) ascertain a further correction term in dependence on a position of an observer in the vehicle, and
“(iii) set the screen luminance based on the correction term and the further correction term in such a way that the original screen luminance is restored from a point of view of an observer,
“wherein the control unit is designed to ascertain the correction term at least based on the time of day and a position of the vehicle without using a sensor or camera.”
Brown discloses:
the control unit is further designed to ascertain (i) a correction term in dependence on a material of the cover element surface and/or on a luminance with respect to the cover element which corresponds to the ambient radiation incident on the cover element, and (iii) set the screen luminance based on the correction term in such a way that the original screen luminance is restored from a point of view of an observer (paragraphs 65-66: an optical image having the same color intensity distribution as would be present within an original optical image, i.e., an optical image without any optical filter thereon”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Kim the elements taught by Brown.
The rationale is as follows:
Kim and Brown are directed to the same field of art.
Brown discloses this can improve the image. This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Kim in view of Brown still does not disclose:
(ii) ascertain a further correction term in dependence on a position of an observer in the vehicle, and
“(iii) set the screen luminance based on the correction term and the further correction term in such a way that the original screen luminance is restored from a point of view of an observer,
“wherein the control unit is designed to ascertain the correction term at least based on the time of day and a position of the vehicle without using a sensor or camera.”
Kurokawa discloses:
the control is further designed to:
(ii) ascertain a further correction term in dependence on a position of an observer in the vehicle, and (iii) set the screen luminance based on the correction term and the further correction term in such a way that the original screen luminance is restored from a point of view of an observer (paragraph 84: “information about the position of user’s eyes (or viewing direction)…is combined with information about…the illuminance of external light”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Kim in view of Brown the elements taught by Kurokawa.
The rationale is as follows:
Kim, Brown, and Kurokawa are directed to the same field of art.
Kurokawa discloses an improvement that “enables even more accurate adjustments” (paragraph 84). This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included this with predictable results.
Kim in view of Brown and Kurokawa still does not disclose:
wherein the control unit is designed to ascertain the correction term at least based on the time of day and a position of the vehicle without using a sensor or camera.
Surnilla discloses:
wherein the control unit is designed to ascertain the correction term at least based on the time of day and a position of the vehicle (paragraph 17: “time of day”; “location of vehicle”) without using a sensor or camera (that it might only use this is shown by the “and/or” in paragraph 36 – it’s clear any of these methods can be used together or separately).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Kim, etc. the elements taught by Surnilla.
The rationale is as follows:
Kim in view of Brown and Kurokawa and Surnilla are directed to the same field of art.
Surnilla discloses ways to adjust the display in order to improve it. This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding claim 8:
Kim, etc., discloses:
wherein the control unit is designed to ascertain the correction term at least based on the time of day and a position of the vehicle and weather information (Surnilla paragraph 17).
Regarding claim 9:
Kim, etc., discloses:
wherein the control unit is designed to ascertain the correction term based on at least pre-stored reflection values of the cover element surface (follows from Brown paragraph 66: it if it knows the transmission coefficient curve for the material, it includes pre-stored reflection values – the opposite of transmission is reflection).
Regarding claim 12:
Kim, etc. discloses:
wherein the control unit is designed to ascertain a single correction term for the entire screen (from Brown paragraph 66 there is an adjustment system for “the image panel”).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Brown, and further in view of Kurokawa, and further in view of Surnilla, and further in view of Galan Garcia et al. (US 2019/0135199)
Regarding claim 11:
Kim, etc., discloses a display unit as discussed above.
Kim, etc. does not disclose:
“wherein the cover element is in the form of a foil.”
Galan Garcia discloses:
wherein the cover element is in the form of a foil (paragraph 7, where a number of these options may be considered a “foil,” such as “metal”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Kim in view of Brown the elements taught by Galan Garcia.
The rationale is as follows:
Kim, Brown, Kurokawa, and Galan Garcia are directed to the same field of art.
Kim does not have a lot of details on the cover’s structure. Galan Garcia discloses numerous possibilities for a cover layer including a foil. One of ordinary skill in the art could have included this in order to select the appropriate matching material with predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument is based on the “without using a sensor or camera” language of claim 15. Applicant argues that the prior art has an ambient light sensor and therefore it would not be obvious to not have one.
But Surnilla, which was relied upon for the time of day and the position of the vehicle language, discloses numerous possible factors that can be used to determine the hue, and it is clear that only some of these could be used. For example, in paragraph 36, Surnilla lists these possible sources and uses the term “and/or” to group them. This language clearly indicates that only some of these various factors might be used, and not all of them are required. “Ambient light” is just one of the factors shown in Fig. 3, and it is not distinguished in any particular way, so the “and/or” language applies to it too.
It uses similar language elsewhere – e.g., paragraph 14, “during the day and/or at other increased levels of ambient light.” So clearly “during the day” is sufficient on its own.
Note too that Brown discloses changing it for “day time and the night time” (paragraph 65). It then goes on to say “in one embodiment, an ambient light sensor…” It is just as clear in Brown that it might just set it based on the time of day without requiring the camera.
Omission of an element is generally considered obvious as long as that element is not desired. In this case it’s clear in Surnilla that there can be numerous factors which can be picked from. The omission of any of them (especially since Surnilla says “and/or”) is obvious, given that the inclusion of each of these elements causes expense and/or increases complexity. One of ordinary skill would certainly look at the factors listed in Surnilla and think that it might be possible to include or not include any of them.
Applicant is acknowledging here that one of ordinary skill would have known to set this value based on the time of the day and the position of the vehicle. Their argument is that one of ordinary skill couldn’t possibly imagine using just this information to set it. But since Surnilla says “or” and since Brown has an embodiment that just uses the time of the day, it seems that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Therefore applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 CHRISTOPHER RAY LAMB whose telephone number is (571)272-5264. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R LAMB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622