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 § 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 and 6 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 recites the limitation "the third object" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 is rejected based on dependency from a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-10, 12-13 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Michael Tsay et al., US 2020/0307377 A1.
Independent claim 1, Tsay discloses a vehicle display device comprising:
a body mounted on a vehicle (i.e. display screen body mounted at dashboard – Fig. 2 “116, 200”);
a memory configured to store navigation information related to the vehicle (Fig. 1 “102”);
a display configured to display a first screen comprising driving information related to the vehicle (i.e. map/navigation information displayed – Fig. 3 “304”; Fig. 5 “502”) and display a card view area on the first screen, the card view area comprising a plurality of objects associated with an execution of a plurality of applications, wherein the plurality of objects are configured as card views adjacent to each other (i.e. display screen includes displayed icons representing applications; each icon displayed adjacent to another – Fig. 5 “504”); and
a processor (Fig. 1 “106”) configured to display an execution screen of a first application corresponding to a first object (i.e. display map/navigation application icon – Fig. 4), the first object included in the card view area (i.e. map/navigation application icon displayed in a view with other application icons – Fig. 4 “404”), on a first portion of the card view area, in response to receiving a selection input applied to the first object, wherein the processor controls the display to output an execution screen of a second application corresponding to a second object (i.e. inactive application displayed as icon transitions to active state, upon user interaction with a menu – Fig. 5 “502”; Para 40; and activates a second object, e.g. a phone call – Fig. 6 “602”), the second object included in the card view area, on a second portion adjacent to the first portion of the card view area (i.e. active map/navigation information displayed beside phone call application – Fig. 7), in response to receiving a selection input applied to the second object (i.e. user interacts with the active application – Fig. 5; Para 40; Fig. 6; Para 42), and the first and second portions are sub-areas having expanded sizes than corresponding objects (i.e. phone call and map/navigation applications are displayed enlarged when activated – Fig. 7), and remaining objects of the card view area are restricted from being displayed while the sub-areas are displayed (i.e. remaining applications, e.g. to do or calendar, are displayed as icons smaller than activated applications – Fig. 7; and user can interact with one application at a time – Para 47; or other applications are restricted by collapsing the application to enable user interaction with a single application – Para 42).
Claim 3, Tsay discloses the vehicle display device of claim 1, wherein the first portion is an area expanded based on a display position of the first object inside the card view area (i.e. first portion is expanded to the left of the position of the icon/object – Fig. 5, 6).
Claim 4, Tsay discloses the vehicle display device of claim 1, wherein the second portion is an area expanded based on a display position of the second object with respect to the execution screen of the first application, and the position of the first part changes in response to a generation of the second portion (i.e. applications displayed in order, with the most recent application being displayed first, and shifting the display of the remaining active/previously opened applications to the right – Fig. 7).
Claim 5, Tsay discloses the vehicle display device of claim 1, wherein the processor controls the display such that the third object obscured by the first portion is displayed, in response to receiving an input to the card view area for an object search, while the execution screen of the first application is displayed on the first portion, and is hidden again by the first portion after completion of the object search (i.e. an offscreen icon representing an application is revealed when a scroll input is received, later hidden to make room for open/active applications – Fig. 5-7; Para 45, 47).
Claim 7, Tsay discloses the vehicle display device of claim 1, wherein the processor expands a sub-area corresponding to a selected portion to the entire card view area, and terminates an execution of an application corresponding to another portion which is not selected, in response to receiving a selection input to one of the first portion or the second portion (i.e. selecting an application makes the application interactive and other applications closed – Para 47).
Claim 8, Tsay discloses the vehicle display device of claim 1, wherein the processor displays a second screen, instead of the card view area, on the display, the second screen comprising the navigation information, in response to receiving a first input to the display while the first screen is displayed (i.e. exemplary interfaces display a second selected application, such as navigation application, and closes a first application – Para 42; 47; Fig. 5, 7).
Claim 9, Tsay discloses the vehicle display device of claim 1, wherein the processor controls the display such that the card view area is reconfigured with objects corresponding to favorite applications, in response to receiving a second input to the display while the first screen is displayed (i.e. the user may customize the display order of the applications – Para 44).
Claim 10, Tsay discloses the vehicle display device of claim 1, wherein the processor controls the display such that a type of object comprised in the card view area changes based on at least one of a driving status or driving mode of the vehicle (i.e. the controls/applications are moved during active driving – Para 2; the type of applications available change with the vehicle drive mode, e.g. manual, autonomous – Para 49).
Claim 12, Tsay discloses the vehicle display device of claim 10, wherein the processor recognizes the driving mode of the vehicle, configures the card view area by excluding at least one object, which is restricted while the vehicle travels, and displays the configured card view area, in a manual driving mode (i.e. display applications excluding the movie application, when in manual drive mode – Fig. 8), and configures the card view area by comprising a same object as that while the vehicle is in a stopped state and displays the configured card view area, in an autonomous driving mode (i.e. display different available/arranged application when in autonomous driving mode – Fig. 8).
Claim 13, Tsay discloses the vehicle display device of claim 1, wherein the processor controls the display such that the first screen is maintained and simultaneously the card view area is drawn out along an input to be displayed, in response to receiving the input to a first area of the display while only the first screen is displayed on the display (Fig. 5).
Claim 15, Tsay discloses the vehicle display device of claim 1, wherein the processor, in case where a specific object in the card view area is associated with the driving information, controls the display such that the driving information is restricted from being displayed on the first screen, and the specific object comprising the driving information is displayed on a designated position in the card view area when the card view are is displayed (i.e. the vehicle control section displaying information about the control of the vehicle is removed from display in autonomous drive mode – Para 49; and the display screen displays multiple applications, including an application for vehicle info, when the card view area is displayed in manual drive mode – Fig. 8 “802”).
Independent claim 16, the claim is similar in scope to claim 1. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 1 applies herein.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael Tsay et al., US 2020/0307377 A1.
Claim 2, Tsay discloses the vehicle display device of claim 1, wherein the first screen is a panoramic image comprising the navigation information (Fig. 5), and the card view area is displayed to be beside the panorama image (Fig. 5).
Tsay suggests the card view area is displayed to be overlaid on an area designated on the panorama image as Tsay discloses increasing variability and flexibility in how information is displayed to the user (Para 53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at the time the invention was made to substitute Tsay’s known card view area is displayed to be beside the panorama image with the card view area is displayed to be overlaid on an area designated on the panorama image because overlaying the card view is exemplary of an alternative display position and a design choice that provides the benefit of increased variability in how information is displayed to the user (Tsay, Para 53). Thus, the substitution yields predictable results.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael Tsay et al., US 2020/0307377 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Michael Boyagian et al., US 2020/0233567 A1.
Claim 6, Tsay discloses the vehicle display device of claim 5, wherein the processor controls the display such that a size of the first portion is reduced by an original size of the first object with maintaining the execution of the first application while receiving the input for the object search (i.e. the size of the first portion may collapse - Fig. 7; Para 46; an object (e.g. application) search is executed while an active application in a first portion is displayed - Para 47; Fig. 7).
Tsay fails to disclose the first portion returns to a size before the object search when the object search is terminated, which Boyagian discloses (Fig. 7A/B; Fig. 9A/B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at the time the invention was made to combine Boyagian’s known method of the first portion returns to a size before the object search when the object search is terminated with the method of Tsay because modifying an application display size to enable view of additional menu content is exemplary of an alternative display position and a design choice that provides the benefit of increased variability in how information is displayed to the user (Tsay, Para 53). Thus, the combination yields predictable results.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael Tsay et al., US 2020/0307377 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Toyashi Okamoto et al., US 2009/0179745 A1.
Claim 11, Tsay discloses the vehicle display device of claim 10, wherein the card view changes based on vehicle mode of operation (Para 49).
Tsay fails to disclose wherein the processor, in a stopped state of the vehicle, reconfigures the card view area by further comprising an object associated with an execution of at least one application, which is restricted while the vehicle travels, which Okamoto discloses (i.e. add tourist image data, when the vehicle stops – Fig. 3; Para 94).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at the time the invention was made to combine Okamoto’s known method wherein the processor, in a stopped state of the vehicle, reconfigures the card view area by further comprising an object associated with an execution of at least one application, which is restricted while the vehicle travels with the method of Tsay because altering the configuration or type of displayed applications based on vehicle operation status is exemplary of an alternative modification of a display position and a design choice that provides the benefit of increased variability in how information is displayed to the user (Tsay, Para 53). Thus, the combination yields predictable results.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael Tsay et al., US 2020/0307377 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jonathan Dascola et al., AU 2017/100535 B4.
Claim 14, Tsay discloses the vehicle display device of claim 1, and the selection input is applied to an icon of a specific application comprised in the first object or the second object (Fig. 5).
Tsay fails to disclose wherein at least one of the first object or the second object included in the card view area comprises icons of a plurality of applications, which Dascola discloses (i.e. multiple selectable icons displayed in application folder – Fig. 5V7 “5504”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at the time the invention was made to substitute Dascola’s known method of displaying icons of a plurality of applications with the method of Tsay because displaying a plurality of applications on an icon is exemplary of an alternative display position and a design choice that provides the benefit of increased variability in how information is displayed to the user (Tsay, Para 53). Thus, the substitution yields predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANTE HARRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/CHANTE E HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights