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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-13 are pending and have been examined in this application (see Claim Numbering Objection below).
This communication is the first action on the merits.
An information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 23 September 2024 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered first instance of claim 9 (the first instance of claim 9 between claim 7 and the second claim 9) has been renumbered claim 8.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 uses the language of “either” which should be used for two options/limitations; however, there are four limitations after it. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 should be amended to recite “a display in the other display unit” for grammatical correctness. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12 should be amended to recite “[[a]] the plurality of display units mounted on [[a]] the vehicle” since such limitations are previously recited in claim 1 which claim 12 depends on. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13 should be amended to recite “a plurality of display units mounted [[of]] on a vehicle” for grammatical correctness. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
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: “control unit”, “first display unit”, “second display unit”, “projection-type display device”, “display tool apparatus” in claim set 1-12.
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. See claim 9 and paragraphs [0021]-[0023] and [0069] of Applicant’s as-filed specification.
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 § 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 5-7 and 9 are 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 5 is indefinite because of the limitation “... the control unit performs a fifth display control process in which a content selection image is displayed on the second display unit ...”. Claim 1 previously recites “the control unit performs: a first display control process of causing the second display unit to display the driving switching notification information ...”. It is unclear, to the Examiner, whether the “fifth display control process” is meant to be replacing the “first display control process” of claim 1 or whether the “fifth display control process” is happening concurrently with the second display control process which based on claim 1’s language (thereafter) happens after the first display control process.
Claim 7 is indefinite because of the recited limitations “decreasing visual attraction by providing a translucent mask on a display image surface; ... displaying an auxiliary image which indicates driving state switching”. It is unclear, to the Examiner, 1) a display image surface of which display unit Applicant is referring back to and 2) which display unit the “displaying an auxiliary image which indicates driving state switching” is happening on.
Claim 9 recites “the display unit”. It is unclear, to the Examiner, which display unit Applicant is referring back to.
Claim 6 is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a device and claim 13 is directed to a method. Therefore, claims 1 and 13 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
A display control device including: a control unit to control image display of a plurality of display units mounted on a vehicle, wherein the plurality of display units include a first display unit to display a first image and a second display unit to display a second image, and in displaying driving switching notification information for notifying an occupant of the vehicle of switching of the vehicle from a first driving state to a second driving state, in a state in which the occupant watches the first image on the first display unit, the control unit performs: a first display control process of causing the second display unit to display the driving switching notification information, being the second image, so as not to overlap with the first image; and thereafter a second display control process of causing the first display unit to display the driving switching notification information instead of the first image
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, the bolded limitations in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected/available (received, detected, provided, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper (e.g. holding up a first and second pieces of paper). Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" (mental process performed with a physical aid) to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A display control device including: a control unit to control image display of a plurality of display units mounted on a vehicle, wherein the plurality of display units include a first display unit to display a first image and a second display unit to display a second image, and in displaying driving switching notification information for notifying an occupant of the vehicle of switching of the vehicle from a first driving state to a second driving state, in a state in which the occupant watches the first image on the first display unit, the control unit performs: a first display control process of causing the second display unit to display the driving switching notification information, being the second image, so as not to overlap with the first image; and thereafter a second display control process of causing the first display unit to display the driving switching notification information instead of the first image
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations underlined above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the limitations (underlined above and including the limitation “transitioning the driving switching notification information to the first display unit” of claim 13) are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claims 1 and 13 further recite a display control device including: a control unit to ... a plurality of display units mounted on a vehicle, wherein the plurality of display units include a first display unit to ... and a second display unit to ..., the control unit performs: ... causing the second display unit to ... causing the first display unit to ... which merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements and/or additional limitations in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations underlined above are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, e.g. see the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-12 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-12 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-13 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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 1-2, 4, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kume (JP2021160708A – translation provided by the Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Kume discloses a display control device (see at least Figure 1 and Figure 2) including: a control unit to control image display of a plurality of display units mounted on a vehicle (see at least Figure 1, Figure 2 and [0044]), wherein the plurality of display units include a first display unit to display a first image and a second display unit to display a second image (see at least [0044]), and in displaying driving switching notification information for notifying an occupant of the vehicle of switching of the vehicle from a first driving state to a second driving state, in a state in which the occupant watches the first image on the first display unit (see at least [0075]-[0079] and [0081]-[0083]), the control unit performs: a first display control process of causing the second display unit to display the driving switching notification information, being the second image, so as not to overlap with the first image (see at least [0064], [0065], [0067], [0068], [0070], [0082], [0084] and [0085]); and thereafter a second display control process of causing the first display unit to display the driving switching notification information instead of the first image (see at least [0072]-[0079] and [0081]-[0086]).
Regarding claim 2, Kume discloses wherein the first display unit is a projection-type display device to project display light of an image onto a windshield of the vehicle or a screen provided to cover at least a part of the windshield (see at least [0044] and [0045]), the second display unit is a display tool apparatus to display an image on a display screen (see at least [0044] and [0046]), and the control unit performs the first and second display control processes prior to expiry of a driving state switching period (see at least [0066], [0069], [0074], [0082] and [0083]).
Regarding claim 4, Kume discloses wherein if the first image is neither predetermined continuous content which is expected to be desired by the occupant to continuously watch, nor continuously set content set in advance as content desired to be continuously watched by the occupant, the control unit performs a fourth display control process of causing the second display unit to display, again, content which the second display unit used to display prior to displaying the driving switching notification information (see at least Figures 3&5-7, [0064], [0065], [0067], [0068], [0070], [0082], [0084] and [0085]).
Regarding claim 9, Kume discloses wherein the display unit is any display device from among a head-up display (HUD) device, a meter display, a direct projection display for projection of an image displayed on a display onto a windshield or a screen without use of an optical system, a center information display (CID), a center console monitor, a wide display, a passenger display, a display mirror, a side monitor, and an in- vehicle projector projecting an image inside the vehicle (see at least [0044]).
Regarding claim 12, Kume discloses a display system comprising: a plurality of display units mounted on a vehicle; and the control unit according to claim 1 (see at least Figure 1, Figure 2, [0044], see claim 1 above).
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.
Claims 3, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume (JP2021160708A) in view of Yuuta (US20230030288A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kume does not explicitly disclose wherein if the first image is predetermined continuous content which is expected to be desired by the occupant to continuously watch, or continuously set content set in advance as content desired to be continuously watched by the occupant, the control unit performs, concurrently with the second display control process, a third display control process of causing the first image to be displayed as the second image on the second display unit. However, Yuuta teaches wherein if the first image is predetermined continuous content which is expected to be desired by the occupant to continuously watch, or continuously set content set in advance as content desired to be continuously watched by the occupant, the control unit performs, concurrently with the second display control process, a third display control process of causing the first image to be displayed as the second image on the second display unit (see at least Figure 7, [0095]-[0097] and [0131]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Kume to incorporate the teachings of Yuuta which teaches wherein if the first image is predetermined continuous content which is expected to be desired by the occupant to continuously watch, or continuously set content set in advance as content desired to be continuously watched by the occupant, the control unit performs, concurrently with the second display control process, a third display control process of causing the first image to be displayed as the second image on the second display unit since they are directed to display of notifications for an occupant of the vehicle and incorporation of the teachings of Yuuta would increase user comfort and safety of the overall system.
Regarding claim 8, Kume does not explicitly disclose wherein as a method of disappearance of an image and a method of appearance of an image in a display switching period, the control unit performs, on at least one of the first and second display units, any of: an instantaneous image disappearance and appearance process; a disappearance and appearance process using fade-out and fade-in to change luminance over time; or a disappearance and appearance process involving a highlighting process by way of flashing of an image or change of a display mode. However, Yuuta teaches wherein as a method of disappearance of an image and a method of appearance of an image in a display switching period, the control unit performs, on at least one of the first and second display units, any of: an instantaneous image disappearance and appearance process; a disappearance and appearance process using fade-out and fade-in to change luminance over time; or a disappearance and appearance process involving a highlighting process by way of flashing of an image or change of a display mode (see at least Figure 7, [0095]-[0097] and [0131]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Kume to incorporate the teachings of Yuuta which teaches wherein as a method of disappearance of an image and a method of appearance of an image in a display switching period, the control unit performs, on at least one of the first and second display units, any of: an instantaneous image disappearance and appearance process; a disappearance and appearance process using fade-out and fade-in to change luminance over time; or a disappearance and appearance process involving a highlighting process by way of flashing of an image or change of a display mode since they are directed to display of notifications for an occupant of the vehicle and incorporation of the teachings of Yuuta would increase user comfort and safety of the overall system.
Regarding claim 10, Kume does not explicitly disclose wherein when a single display device includes a plurality of display areas whose display is separably controllable, the control unit performs the first and second display control processes by deeming each single display area as a single display unit. However, Yuuta teaches wherein when a single display device includes a plurality of display areas whose display is separably controllable, the control unit performs the first and second display control processes by deeming each single display area as a single display unit (see at least Figures 4-7, [0095]-[0097] and [0131]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Kume to incorporate the teachings of Yuuta which teaches wherein when a single display device includes a plurality of display areas whose display is separably controllable, the control unit performs the first and second display control processes by deeming each single display area as a single display unit since they are directed to display of notifications for an occupant of the vehicle and incorporation of the teachings of Yuuta would increase user comfort and safety of the overall system.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume (JP2021160708A) in view of Kim (US20170364148A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kume does not explicitly disclose wherein if the first image is neither predetermined continuous content which is expected to be desired by the occupant to continuously watch, nor continuously set content set in advance as content desired to be continuously watched by the occupant, the control unit performs a fifth display control process in which a content selection image is displayed on the second display unit, and if content is selected using the content selection image within a predetermined period, the selected content is displayed on the second display unit. However, Kim teaches wherein if the first image is neither predetermined continuous content which is expected to be desired by the occupant to continuously watch, nor continuously set content set in advance as content desired to be continuously watched by the occupant, the control unit performs a fifth display control process in which a content selection image is displayed on the second display unit, and if content is selected using the content selection image within a predetermined period, the selected content is displayed on the second display unit (see at least [0127]-[0130] and [0153]-[0158]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Kume to incorporate the teachings of Kim which teaches wherein if the first image is neither predetermined continuous content which is expected to be desired by the occupant to continuously watch, nor continuously set content set in advance as content desired to be continuously watched by the occupant, the control unit performs a fifth display control process in which a content selection image is displayed on the second display unit, and if content is selected using the content selection image within a predetermined period, the selected content is displayed on the second display unit since they are directed to display of information for an occupant of the vehicle and incorporation of the teachings of Kim would increase user comfort of the overall system.
Regarding claim 6, Kume does not explicitly disclose wherein if the content is not selected within the predetermined period, the control unit performs a sixth display control process of maintaining the content selection image even after the predetermined period. However, Kim teaches wherein if the content is not selected within the predetermined period, the control unit performs a sixth display control process of maintaining the content selection image even after the predetermined period (see at least [0127]-[0130] and [0153]-[0158]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Kume to incorporate the teachings of Kim which teaches wherein if the content is not selected within the predetermined period, the control unit performs a sixth display control process of maintaining the content selection image even after the predetermined period since they are directed to display of information for an occupant of the vehicle and incorporation of the teachings of Kim would increase user comfort of the overall system.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume (JP2021160708A) in view of Hiroshi (US20200238826A1).
Regarding claim 7, Kume does not explicitly disclose wherein if there is an other display unit in addition to the first and second display units, the control unit performs a seventh display control process of performing either: decreasing visual attraction by lowering luminance, chroma, or brightness of display in the other display unit during a period in which the first and second display control processes are being performed; decreasing visual attraction by providing a translucent mask on a display image surface; hiding the display; or displaying an auxiliary image which indicates driving state switching. However, Hiroshi teaches wherein if there is an other display unit in addition to the first and second display units, the control unit performs a seventh display control process of performing either: decreasing visual attraction by lowering luminance, chroma, or brightness of display in the other display unit during a period in which the first and second display control processes are being performed; decreasing visual attraction by providing a translucent mask on a display image surface; hiding the display; or displaying an auxiliary image which indicates driving state switching (see at least [0013], [0053], [0058] and [0078]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Kume to incorporate the teachings of Hiroshi which teaches wherein if there is an other display unit in addition to the first and second display units, the control unit performs a seventh display control process of performing either: decreasing visual attraction by lowering luminance, chroma, or brightness of display in the other display unit during a period in which the first and second display control processes are being performed; decreasing visual attraction by providing a translucent mask on a display image surface; hiding the display; or displaying an auxiliary image which indicates driving state switching they are directed to display of information for an occupant of the vehicle and incorporation of the teachings of Hiroshi would increase reliability of the overall system.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume (JP2021160708A) in view of Tadashi (US20180222491A1).
Regarding claim 11, Kume does not explicitly disclose wherein the control unit performs, in the second display control process, a display moving process of moving the driving switching notification information over time, and thereafter transitioning the driving switching notification information to the first display unit. However, Tadashi teaches wherein the control unit performs, in the second display control process, a display moving process of moving the driving switching notification information over time, and thereafter transitioning the driving switching notification information to the first display unit (see at least [0079]-[0081]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Kume to incorporate the teachings of Tadashi which teaches wherein the control unit performs, in the second display control process, a display moving process of moving the driving switching notification information over time, and thereafter transitioning the driving switching notification information to the first display unit since they are directed to display of information for an occupant of the vehicle and incorporation of the teachings of Tadashi would increase user comfort of the overall system.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is commensurate in scope with claims 1 and 11. See rejection of claims 1 and 11 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHAR MOTAZEDI whose telephone number is (571)272-0661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10a.m. - 6p.m..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/SAHAR MOTAZEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights