CTNF 18/842,758 CTNF 97496 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority The applicant’s claim to priority DE102022106328.3 on 03/18/2022 is acknowledged. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/29/2024 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “ the evaluation unit is configured to ... ” in claims 26 and 27. The functions of the evaluation unit are described as being carried out by a vehicle bus system and/or a control unit on page 12 of the Specification. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 13-17, 19-21, and 24-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (20210306603) in view of Kruse et al. (20190232869; hereinafter Kruse) . Regarding claim 13 , Kobayashi teaches a method for outputting information to a user of a means of transportation (Kobayashi: Abstract), comprising: ascertaining information to be displayed using the means of transportation (Kobayashi: “ The DCM 50 of the present exemplary embodiment is connected to a central server 60 through a network N. The central server 60 is thereby capable of acquiring information from the vehicle 12, and also capable of providing information to the vehicle 12 ” ¶ 48), providing a light pattern representing the information onto a projection surface of the means of transportation (Kobayashi: “ One of the display devices 10 is provided for each of the front seats 13. Each of the display devices 10 includes a projection surface 16 ” ¶ 42) using at least one of the group consisting of: projecting the light pattern on the projection surface (Kobayashi: “ projector 24 (see FIG. 2) installed behind the dashboard 14 projects an image onto the projection surface 16 from behind the dashboard 14 ” ¶ 43); and ... Kobayashi fails to teach outputting the light pattern using an ambient lighting unit . However, in a similar field of endeavor, Kruse teaches outputting the light pattern using an ambient lighting unit (Kruse: “ the pattern generator 301 comprises a plurality of light nodes LN ” ¶ 200, “ the pattern generator 301 may be positioned within the interior of the vehicle to be viewable in the peripheral view of an occupant 305 ” ¶ 194). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the display system of Kobayashi so that it also includes the element of ambient lighting display, as taught by Kruse, in order to reduce distractive displays (Kruse: ¶ 8). Regarding claim 14 , Kobayashi in view of Kruse teaches the method as claimed in claim 13, wherein providing the light pattern representing the information on the projection surface further comprises projecting the light pattern on the projection surface, wherein the projection surfaces forms at least a portion of a dashboard of the means of transportation (Kobayashi: “ Each of the display devices 10 includes a projection surface 16, serving as a display section used to display images on the dashboard 14. The projection surface 16 is an example of an interior surface ” ¶ 42). Regarding claim 15 , Kobayashi in view of Kruse teaches the method as claimed in claim 13, wherein providing the light pattern representing the information on the projection surface further comprises outputting the light pattern on the projection surface, wherein the projection surfaces forms at least a portion of a dashboard of the means of transportation (Kobayashi: “ Each of the display devices 10 includes a projection surface 16, serving as a display section used to display images on the dashboard 14. The projection surface 16 is an example of an interior surface ” ¶ 42). Regarding claim 16 , Kobayashi fails to teach the method as claimed in claim 13, wherein the information represents an operating state of a speech dialog system . However, in a similar field of endeavor, Kruse teaches of the method as claimed in claim 13, wherein the information represents an operating state of a speech dialog system (Kruse: “ generate a light pattern on pattern generator 301 which may be used as an avatar to provide feedback of receiving voice commands ... Multiple avatars, which may also be called pixies, may be available and different colors may, for example, be used to differentiate them from each other ” ¶ 211). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the display system of Kobayashi so that it also includes the element of an operating state information, as taught by Kruse, in order to improve information differentiation (Kruse: ¶ 211). Regarding claim 17 , Kobayashi fails to teach the method as claimed in claim 16, wherein the information represents an operating state of an output of the speech dialog system to a user . However, in a similar field of endeavor, Kruse teaches the method as claimed in claim 16, wherein the information represents an operating state of an output of the speech dialog system to a user (Kruse: “ generate a light pattern on pattern generator 301 which may be used as an avatar to provide feedback of receiving voice commands and to visually emphasize audio/voice feedback from the vehicle to the occupant 305 ” ¶ 211). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the display system of Kobayashi so that it also includes the element of an operating state information output, as taught by Kruse, in order to improve vehicle information feedback (Kruse: ¶ 211). Regarding claim 19 , Kobayashi in view of Kruse teaches the method as claimed in claim 13, wherein the information represents a change of operating state of a driver assistance system (Kobayashi: “ When correction information is generated as a result of the adjustment processing, images to be projected onto the projection surface 16 are corrected based on the correction information and displayed at the location for which they were designed ” ¶ 93). Regarding claim 20 , Kobayashi in view of Kruse teaches the method as claimed in claim 13, wherein the information represents a feedback in response to a user input using a touchscreen (Kobayashi: “ The technician acting as the occupant P therefore needs to identify the position of the marker 84 that they are fixating on by indicating this marker 84 using the touch panel 26 ” ¶ 101). Regarding claim 21 , Kobayashi in view of Kruse teaches the method as claimed in claim 13, further comprising: categorizing the information to be displayed (Kobayashi: “ The target images 80 include a test image 81 as illustrated in FIG. 6, and an authentication image 82 as illustrated in FIG. 7 ... The authentication image 82 includes a single marker 84 to guide the eyes E of the occupant P toward the onboard camera 32 ” ¶ 59) and using for the light pattern at least one of the group consisting of: ... and, a graphic assigned to the category (Kobayashi: “ Target images 80, these being images to be displayed on the projector 24, are stored in the image information 110 ” ¶ 59, see also ¶ 65). However, Kobayashi fails to teach a color assigned to the category . In a similar field of endeavor, Kruse teaches a color assigned to the category (Kruse: “generate a light pattern on pattern generator 301 which may be used as an avatar to provide feedback ... Multiple avatars, which may also be called pixies, may be available and different colors may, for example, be used to differentiate them from each other ” ¶ 211). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the display system of Kobayashi so that it also includes the element of color assigned categories, as taught by Kruse, in order to improve vehicle information feedback (Kruse: ¶ 207, 211). Regarding claim 24 , Kobayashi fails to teach the method as claimed in claim 13, wherein: the information represents a weather condition; and the light pattern comprises a symbolic animation selected from a plurality of symbolic animations depending on the weather condition . However, in a similar field of endeavor, Kruse teaches the method as claimed in claim 13, wherein: the information represents a weather condition (Kruse: “ the apparatus may be a vehicle, and the controller 805 may receive from one of the information providers ... weather data ” ¶ 246); and the light pattern comprises a symbolic animation selected from a plurality of symbolic animations depending on the weather condition (Kruse: “ The controller may be configured to modify the visual light pattern in dependence on the data and to initiate the generation of the modified visual light pattern on the pattern generator. The data may be related to at least one of the apparatus and the user, and the controller may be configured to initiate the generation of the modified visual light pattern on the pattern generator ” ¶ 247, see also ¶ 248, 249). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the display system of Kobayashi so that it also includes the of element weather display, as taught by Kruse, in order to improve vehicle information feedback (Kruse: ¶ 232). Regarding claim 25 , Kobayashi fails to teach the method as claimed in claim 13, wherein the information represents an expected arrival time and the light pattern represents information representative of an expected punctual arrival, an expected slight delay, or an expected significant delay, depending on the expected arrival time and a predefined target arrival time . However, in a similar field of endeavor, Kruse teaches the method as claimed in claim 13, wherein the information represents an expected arrival time and the light pattern represents information representative of an expected punctual arrival, an expected slight delay, or an expected significant delay, depending on the expected arrival time and a predefined target arrival time (Kruse: “ In order to indicate that the vehicle will slow down or stop, the controller may illuminate at least some of the light nodes of zones 2 and 3 (see reference numerals 317 and 319 in FIG. 3B) which are ahead of the occupant 305. More specifically, in order to indicate a stop, the controller may start illuminating light node 32 ” ¶ 210, see also ¶ 246, 248). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the display system of Kobayashi so that it also includes the element of arrival time / delays, as taught by Kruse, in order to improve vehicle information feedback (Kruse: ¶ 232). Regarding claim 26 , Kobayashi teaches a device for a means of transportation, comprising a dashboard (Kobayashi: “ a dashboard 14 ” ¶ 42), a data input (Kobayashi: “ A touch panel 26, serving as an input device ” ¶ 43), an evaluation unit (Kobayashi: “ a display control device 20 ” ¶ 44), a data output (Kobayashi: “ a display control device 20 that controls the images output to the projector 24 ” ¶ 44), a projector (Kobayashi: “ a projector 24 ” ¶ 43), ... a projection surface on the dashboard (Kobayashi: “ a projection surface 16, serving as a display section used to display images on the dashboard 14 ” ¶ 42), wherein the evaluation unit is configured to, ... Kobayashi fails to teach an ambient lighting unit . However, in a similar field of endeavor, Kruse teaches an ambient lighting unit (Kruse: “ the pattern generator 301 comprises a plurality of light nodes LN ” ¶ 200, “ the pattern generator 301 may be positioned within the interior of the vehicle to be viewable in the peripheral view of an occupant 305 ” ¶ 194, “ The vehicle information system may thus be regarded as a peripheral ambient communication ” ¶ 42). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the display system of Kobayashi so that it also includes the element of ambient lighting display, as taught by Kruse, in order to reduce distractive displays (Kruse: ¶ 8). In regards to the remainder of claim 26 , the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 13 , and is therefore rejected under the same premise. Regarding claim 27 , Kobayashi teaches a device for a means of transportation having a dashboard, comprising: an evaluation unit (Kobayashi: “ a display control device 20 ” ¶ 44); a light source (Kobayashi: “ a projector 24 ” ¶ 43); wherein the evaluation unit is configured to, ... In regards to the remainder of claim 27 , the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 13 , and is therefore rejected under the same premise. Regarding claim 28 , Kobayashi in view of Kruse teaches the device as claimed in claim 27, wherein the device further comprises a fitting protruding from the dashboard, and wherein the projector is arranged on a rear of the fitting (Kobayashi: “ a projector 24 (see FIG. 2) installed behind the dashboard 14 ” ¶ 43). Regarding claim 29 , Kobayashi fails to teach the device as claimed in claim 28, wherein the information to be displayed is generated using a continuous input device, wherein the input device comprises at least one of the group consisting of a slider of the means of transportation and a rotary control of the means of transportation . However, in a similar field of endeavor, Kruse teaches wherein the information to be displayed is generated using a continuous input device, wherein the input device comprises at least one of the group consisting of a slider of the means of transportation and a rotary control of the means of transportation (Kruse: “ The interior comprises dashboard 201 with a steering wheel 203 ” ¶ 188, “ the controller may generate a light pattern which is associated with this action. For example, the controller may start illuminating light node 16 and further illuminate in a filling sweep from light node 16 to light node 1 for a sharp turn of more than 90 degrees, to light node 8 for a 90 degree turn ” ¶ 208). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the display system of Kobayashi so that it also includes the element of continuous inputs, as taught by Kruse, in order to improve information provided during driving (Kruse: ¶ 218). Regarding claim 30 , Kobayashi in view of Kruse teaches the device as claimed in claim 27, wherein a spatial extension or a focal point of the light pattern representing the information represents the position of the input means (Kobayashi: “ The position of the marker 84 that the occupant P is fixating on is thereby identified by indicating this marker 84 using the touch panel 26 ” ¶ 77). Regarding claim 31 , Kobayashi in view of Kruse teaches a means of transportation comprising a device as claimed in claim 27 (Kobayashi: “ a vehicle 12 installed with a display device ” ¶ 42) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Kruse as applied to claim s 13-17, 19-21, and 24-31 above, and further in view of Hoggarth et al. (20190155489; hereinafter Hoggarth) . Regarding claim 18 , Kobayashi fails to teach the method as claimed in claim 13, wherein the information represents a text output of a speech dialog system . In a similar field of endeavor, Kruse teaches of a speech dialog system (Kruse: “ generate a light pattern on pattern generator 301 which may be used as an avatar to provide feedback of receiving voice commands and to visually emphasize audio/voice feedback from the vehicle ” ¶ 211). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the display system of Kobayashi so that it also includes the element of an operating state information, as taught by Kruse, in order to improve information differentiation (Kruse: ¶ 211). However, Kobayashi in view of Kruse fails to teach of a text output . In a similar field of endeavor, Hoggarth teaches of a text output (Hoggarth: “ The image I may include ... pictures, videos, texts or any other items of information or entertainment content displayed as part of the image I produced by the display system 100 ” ¶ 48). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the display system of Kobayashi in view of Kruse so that it also includes the element of text, as taught by Hoggarth, in order to improve information displayed to an occupant (Hoggarth: ¶ 49) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Kruse as applied to claim s 13-17, 19-21, and 24-31 above, and further in view of Betz et al. (20190118614; hereinafter Betz) . Regarding claim 22 , Kobayashi in view of Kruse fail to teach the method as claimed in claim 13, wherein the information represents a target temperature; and the light pattern comprises a hue from a plurality of hues selected depending on the target temperature . However, in a similar field of endeavor, Betz teaches wherein the information represents a target temperature (Betz: “ A temperature setting 10 can be carried out at control unit 30 ” ¶ 36); and the light pattern comprises a hue from a plurality of hues selected depending on the target temperature (Betz: “ After a temperature setting 10 has taken place, for example by an operator, in particular the vehicle driver, a determination 32 of the light color is carried out, which is to be set at lighting elements 18 ” ¶ 37, see also ¶ 38, 39). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the display system of Kobayashi in view of Kruse so that it also includes the element of a target temperature and light pattern hue, as taught by Betz, in order to provide unobtrusive vehicle information (Betz: ¶ 20) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Kruse as applied to claim s 13-17, 19-21, and 24-31 above, and further in view of Hendricks (10239445) . Regarding claim 23 , Kobayashi in view of Kruse fails to teach the method as claimed in claim 13, wherein: the information represents a weather condition; and the light pattern comprises a pictogram selected from a plurality of pictograms depending on the weather condition . However, in a similar field of endeavor, Hendricks teaches the information represents a weather condition (Hendricks: “ The one or more sensors 154 can also include weather or environment sensors ” Col. 9 Lines 20-22); and the light pattern comprises a pictogram selected from a plurality of pictograms depending on the weather condition (Hendricks: “ the one or more sensors 154 can provide weather information for display as one or more images or series of images by the projection mechanism 28/128 ” Col. 9 Lines 24-26) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Miyasaka (20180126908) is in the similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention of vehicle information display . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLINT V PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4543. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5. 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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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. /C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3663 /ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/842,758 Page 2 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/842,758 Page 3 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/842,758 Page 4 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/842,758 Page 5 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/842,758 Page 6 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/842,758 Page 7 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/842,758 Page 8 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/842,758 Page 9 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/842,758 Page 10 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/842,758 Page 11 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/842,758 Page 12 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/842,758 Page 13 Art Unit: 3663
Prosecution Insights