DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant Amendment and Argument filed on 01/30/2026. This Action is made FINAL.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-23 are pending for examination.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages , filed 01/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In the Remarks, Applicant argued the following:
The combination of Goodwin, Ricci, and Miyata fails to teach or suggest
“wherein the controller is further configured to cause the visual display to visually present an audio settings configuration panel in a position of the first and second sub-panels in response to a user selection of an audio control input”
Regarding point (a)(i), applicant argues the addition of Ricci’s disclosure of generic reconfiguration does not teach the coordination of an audio-specific user input and sub-panel replacement in a multi-panel visual display environment as required by the claimed limitations. However, examiner does not find this argument convincing. Ricci’s teachings of general reconfiguration specifically teach reconfiguration of “at least one…of a layout, size, position, features, instruments, indicators, color schemes, or controls for display on at least one of an above a vehicle dash by the HUD unit, a reconfigurable dash display, a reconfigurable console display, or a reconfigurable user device display” with figures 2A- 2D clearly showing multiple sections (panels) where at least one had a display element maintained while another had a display element displaying a user selected settings configuration. This general reconfiguration of a console display along with Goodwin’s teachings of a paneled display renders obvious the limitation as claimed. Examiner maintains the prior art teaches the amended claim limitations further as the number of panels/what is displayed in which screen sections is a matter of design choice regarding the choice to balance the visibility of information vs what information is deemed relevant or desirable to current operations.
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, 8, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antuan Goodwin (https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/android-auto-split-screen-redesign-summer-2022/ accessed via archive.org wavybackmachine capture date 05/12/2022) henceforth referred to as Goodwin and in view of Ricci (US 20190288916 A1) henceforth referred to as Ricci and further in view of Miyata et al (US 20080148187 A1) henceforth referred to as Miyata.
Regarding Claim 1 Goodwin teaches An audio system comprising (pg 1 : “As part of its I/O 2022
developers' conference, Google showcased the next iteration of its Android Auto app mirroring interface for cars rolling out this Summer.”):
a visual display (pg. 2 : “The main area of the display is now split into three sections with two tiles dedicated to displaying navigation and media controls -- the features Google thinks drivers prioritize when behind the wheel.”);
an input sensor to accept user selections (pg. 3 “When a message comes in, a preview will sit in this flexible space waiting for the user to interactor reply. Users will also now be able to quickly respond to those incoming messages with a single tap using Google Assistant AI-suggested quick replies -- like "OK" or "On my way" -- similar to those offered on Pixel devices.”, it would be required the interface have an input sensor to allow a user to interact with a single tap); and
a controller coupled to the visual display and the input sensor and configured to cause the visual display to visually present to a user (pg 1 : “As part of its I/O 2022 developers' conference, Google showcased the next iteration of its Android Auto app mirroring interface for cars rolling out this Summer.”, it would be required for the system to have a controller coupled to the visual display and input sensor for the system to function as described.):
a primary panel,
a first sub-panel, and
a second sub-panel ( pg 2 : “The main area of the display is now split into three sections with two tiles dedicated to displaying navigation and media controls -- the features Google thinks drivers prioritize when behind the wheel.”, where the three sections are a primary panel, a first sub-panel, and a second sub-panel),
wherein the primary panel occupies a primary area of the visual display, the primary area of the visual display being greater than a first area occupied by the first sub-panel and greater than a second area occupied by the second sub-panel ( The image shows the primary panel with an area of the visual display greater than the first and second sub-panel areas
PNG
media_image1.png
601
1070
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) However Goodwin does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is further configured to cause the visual display to visually present an audio settings configuration panel that replaces, in the visual display, the positions of both the first sub-panel and the second sub-panel while maintaining content then displayed in the primary panel in response to a user selection of an audio controls icon.
However, in a similar field of endeavor (reconfigurable vehicle displays/GUIs), Ricci teaches wherein the controller is further configured to cause the visual display to visually present an audio settings configuration panel that replaces, in the visual display, the positions of both the first sub-panel and the second sub-panel while maintaining content then displayed in the primary panel in response to a user selection of an audio controls icon (para [0028] : “The term “desktop” refers to a metaphor used to portray systems. A desktop is generally considered a “surface” that typically includes pictures, called icons, widgets, folders, etc. that can activate show applications, windows, cabinets, files, folders, documents, and other graphical items. The icons are generally selectable to initiate a task through user interface interaction to allow a user to execute applications or conduct other operations.”, para [0102] : “In one embodiment, a system or method for reconfiguring (dynamically) a vehicle display may comprise: a Graphical User Interface (“GUI”) including a first display area; an input gesture area of the first display area; a HUD unit; a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, configure the system to: (1) display, at a first time, a configuration area to a portion of the GUI, wherein the configuration area includes at least one of a vehicle dash information, readouts, instruments, indicators, or controls arranged as a visual representation of a virtual dash display for the HUD unit; (2) receive a gesture input at the GUI, wherein the gesture input corresponds to an instruction to reconfigure at least one of a layout, size, position, features, instruments, indicators, color schemes, or controls for display on at least one of an above a vehicle dash by the HUD unit, a reconfigurable dash display, a reconfigurable console display, or a reconfigurable user device display; and wherein the gesture input is at least one of hand gesture or touch gesture received through at least one of a gesture capture region or image capture disposed on at least one of a dash, console, dash display, or console display.”, as Goodwin teaches a primary panel and two sub panels and Ricci teaches reconfiguration of a layout, size, position, features, etc. of a display, the combination teaches reconfiguration of the two sub panels to a single representation in the locations of the first and second sub-panels. Further, the reconfiguration of Ricci at least renders the reconfiguration of the first and second sub-panels while maintaining displaying in the primary panel as obvious design choice as Ricci teaches reconfiguration of “at least one of a layout, size, position, features, instruments, indicators, color schemes, or controls for display”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the system of Goodwin with the system of Ricci to increase ease of use and user customization. However, the combination does not explicitly teach presenting an audio settings configuration in response to a selection of an audio control icon.
However, in a similar field of endeavor (vehicle audio settings) Miyata teaches presenting an audio settings configuration in response to a selection of an audio control input (para [0051] : “If the user determines selection of the audio button 20c on the menu screen 19, the display 3 displays an audio setting screen 25 as a detailed setting screen of various functions of the audio system.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the combination of Goodwin and Ricci with the audio settings control of Miyata to increase accessibility and ease of use for an operator of a vehicle to configure audio settings.
Regarding Claim 8 it recites a method with limitations substantially the same as claim 1 above, therefor it is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding Claim 15 it recites a non-transitory computer readable medium with limitations substantially the same as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
Claim(s) 3-4, 10-11, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodwin in view of Ricci and further in view of Mizuno (US 20090034745 A1) henceforth referred to as Mizuno.
Regarding Claim 3 Goodwin teaches The audio system of claim 1 however Goodwin does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is further configured to cause the visual display to visually present an audio settings configuration panel that graphically includes at least a primary volume control, a secondary volume control, and a zone selection control.
However, in a similar field of endeavor (reconfigurable vehicle displays/GUIs), Ricci teaches wherein the controller is further configured to cause the visual display to visually present configuration panel that graphically includes at least an element (para [0102] : “In one embodiment, a system or method for reconfiguring (dynamically) a vehicle display may comprise: a Graphical User Interface (“GUI”) including a first display area; an input gesture area of the first display area; a HUD unit; a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, configure the system to: (1) display, at a first time, a configuration area to a portion of the GUI, wherein the configuration area includes at least one of a vehicle dash information, readouts, instruments, indicators, or controls arranged as a visual representation of a virtual dash display for the HUD unit; (2) receive a gesture input at the GUI, wherein the gesture input corresponds to an instruction to reconfigure at least one of a layout, size, position, features, instruments, indicators, color schemes, or controls for display on at least one of an above a vehicle dash by the HUD unit, a reconfigurable dash display, a reconfigurable console display, or a reconfigurable user device display; and wherein the gesture input is at least one of hand gesture or touch gesture received through at least one of a gesture capture region or image capture disposed on at least one of a dash, console, dash display, or console display.”, as Goodwin teaches a primary panel and two sub panels and Ricci teaches reconfiguration of a layout, size, position, features, etc. of a display, the combination teaches reconfiguration of the two sub panels to a single representation in the locations of the first and second sub-panels.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the system of Goodwin with the system of Ricci to increase ease of use and user customization. However, the combination does not explicitly teach presenting an audio settings configuration including at least a primary volume control, a secondary volume control, and a zone selection control
However, in a similar field of endeavor (vehicle audio systems) Mizuno teaches audio settings including at least a primary volume control, a second volume control, and a zone selection control ( para [0081] : “Further, the operating section may be provided on a front panel section in a vehicle, as shown in FIG. 7, for example, and this allows a user to control collectively all the sound volumes for the seats.”, Fig. 7, Fig. 7 shows an interface to selectively control vol and sound image control for four individual and separate locations (driver, navigator, behind drive, behind navigator) in a vehicle, where the combination of Goodwin and Ricci teaches a reconfigurable vehicle display/GUI for control of vehicle systems combined with the teaches of the audio settings/system of Mizuno would teach the display/GUI control of the system of Mizuno teaching the limitations as claimed).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the combination of Goodwin and Ricci with the audio system of Mizuno to increase control and improve sound settings and configurations for occupants of a vehicle.
Regarding Claim 4 the combination of Goodwin, Ricci, and Mizuno teaches The audio system of claim 3 further Mizuno teaches wherein the zone selection control includes at least three zones representative of at least three occupant locations (Fig. 7, Fig. 7 shows zone selection control of 4 locations in the vehicle (driver, navigator, behind drive, behind navigator)).
Regarding Claim 10, it recites a method with limitations substantially the same as claim 3 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding Claim 11, it recites a method with limitations substantially the same as claim 4 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding Claim 17, it recites a computer readable medium with limitations substantially the same as claim 3 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding Claim 18, it recites a computer readable medium with limitations substantially the same as claim 4 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodwin and further in view of Ricci.
Regarding Claim 5 Goodwin teaches The audio system of claim 1 however Goodwin does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is further configured, in response to a user selection of one of the first or second sub-panels, to cause the visual display to present in the primary panel a visual content associated with an application that was previously active in the selected one of the first or second sub-panels.
However, in a similar field of endeavor (reconfigurable vehicle displays/GUIs), Ricci teaches wherein the controller is further configured, in response to a user selection of one of the first or second sub-panels, to cause the visual display to present in the primary panel a visual content associated with an application that was previously active in the selected one of the first or second sub-panels (para [0102] : “In one embodiment, a system or method for reconfiguring (dynamically) a vehicle display may comprise: a Graphical User Interface (“GUI”) including a first display area; an input gesture area of the first display area; a HUD unit; a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, configure the system to: (1) display, at a first time, a configuration area to a portion of the GUI, wherein the configuration area includes at least one of a vehicle dash information, readouts, instruments, indicators, or controls arranged as a visual representation of a virtual dash display for the HUD unit; (2) receive a gesture input at the GUI, wherein the gesture input corresponds to an instruction to reconfigure at least one of a layout, size, position, features, instruments, indicators, color schemes, or controls for display on at least one of an above a vehicle dash by the HUD unit, a reconfigurable dash display, a reconfigurable console display, or a reconfigurable user device display; and wherein the gesture input is at least one of hand gesture or touch gesture received through at least one of a gesture capture region or image capture disposed on at least one of a dash, console, dash display, or console display.”, as Goodwin teaches a primary panel and two sub panels and Ricci teaches reconfiguration of a layout, size, position, features, etc. of a display, the combination teaches reconfiguration of content of a sub panel with a change in location to the primary panel.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the system of Goodwin with the system of Ricci to increase ease of use and user customization.
Regarding Claim 12, it recites a method with limitations substantially the same as claim 5 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding Claim 19, it recites a computer readable medium with limitations substantially the same as claim 5 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
Claim(s) 6-7, 13-14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodwin and further in view of Yuan et al (US 20200062276 A1) henceforth referred to as Yuan.
Regarding Claim 6 Goodwin teaches The audio system of claim 1 however Goodwin does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is further configured to cause the visual display to visually present a telephone audio configuration panel in response to an incoming audio call.
However, in a similar field of endeavor (systems for incoming phone calls in vehicles), Yuan teaches wherein the controller is further configured to cause the visual display to visually present a telephone audio configuration panel in response to an incoming audio call (para [0031] : “Vehicle 200 optionally receives 402 an indication of an incoming phone call, as shown in FIG. 3B. In some embodiments, the phone call is received at a mobile phone in communication with the vehicle. In response to receiving the indication of the incoming phone call, the vehicle 200 optionally displays 404, on the HUD 251, an indication of the incoming phone call and a contextual control image, as shown in FIG. 3B.”, para [0034] : “If the vehicle 200 detects 412 a user input for accepting the call (e.g., an input at the right input region 213 of the touch pad 210, as shown in FIG. 3B), the phone call is initiated. While the phone call is in progress, the display optionally presents a visual indication of the phone call 303 and a contextual control image 360 indicating a plurality of operations related to the ongoing phone call that the user is able to perform using the touch pad 210 (e.g., mute call, end call, increase volume, and decrease volume), as shown in FIG. 3C.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the system of Goodwin with the teachings of Yuan to increase user safety by increasing the ease of handling an incoming phone call while operating a vehicle.
Regarding Claim 7 the combination of Goodwin and Yuan teaches The audio system of claim 6 further Yuan teaches wherein the telephone audio configuration panel includes user selectable options to route the incoming audio call to one of at least two occupant locations (para [0034] : “If the vehicle 200 detects 412 a user input for accepting the call (e.g., an input at the right input region 213 of the touch pad 210, as shown in FIG. 3B), the phone call is initiated.”, in order for the system to operate a as indicated it would be required that the incoming audio call be routed to at least one of the occupant locations).
Regarding Claim 13, it recites a method with limitations substantially the same as claim 6 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding Claim 14, it recites a method with limitations substantially the same as claim 7 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding Claim 20, , it recites a computer readable medium with limitations substantially the same as claim 6 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-23 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DAVID HATCH whose telephone number is (571)272-4518. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, James J Lee can be reached on 571-270-5965. 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.
/D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/IMRAN K MUSTAFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668 5/29/2026
Prosecution Insights