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 § 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, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garcia et al. (U.S. Pub No. 20200216089).
Regarding claims 1, 13, 14- 15, Garcia et al. disclose Garcia et al. disclose a method, computer program product and an automotive infotainment video player system comprising: a video server configured to store at least one video, the video being linked to at least one marking mask, which includes at least one user-interactable display segment; a display arrangement configured to display the video linked to the at least one marking mask (See Garcia et al. Fig.2, Fig. 3A, paragraph 0032, Fig. 3B, the user-interactable display segments = buttons; Fig. 3F user-interactable display segments=”user manual control screen”);
an input device configured to receive a user input, which includes a user's interaction with the user-interactable display segment of the marking mask that is linked to the video which is displayed by the display arrangement; and a processing unit configured to operate the display arrangement in response to the user input, which is received by the input device (See paragraph 0039, 0073, 0082).
Regarding claims 2-3, Garcia et al. disclose wherein the display arrangement is further configured to display the at least one user-interactable display segment when displaying the video; and , wherein the marking mask (M) is generated based on video data of the video (See paragraph 0033).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia et al. (U.S. Pub No. 20200216089) in view of Cansino et al. (U.S. Pub No. 20170185362).
Regarding claim 6, Garcia et al. disclose all but fail to specifically disclose wherein the display arrangement is further configured to simultaneously display the at least one video and an accompanying text information, the accompanying text information being generated based on video data of the least one video. In an analogous art, Cansino et al. disclose the display arrangement is further configured to simultaneously display the at least one video and an accompanying text information, the accompanying text information being generated based on video data of the least one video (See Fig. 10C; Fig. 18B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the system of Garcia et al. with that of Cansino et al. to have a display arrangement configured to simultaneously display the at least one video and an accompanying text information, the accompanying text information being generated based on video data of the least one video because it would have achieved a desired result for controlling content displayed in an in-vehicle infotainment system.
Regarding claims 4-5, 7, as best understood, Cansino et al. disclose accompanying text information is generated based on text information visible in the video when displayed and obviously any translation of text information (See Fig. 10C; Fig. 18B) and wherein the at least one user-interactable display segment is formed corresponding to an object visible in the video when displayed; and wherein at least one of the shape of the at least one user-interactable display segment and the position of the at least one user-interactable display is variable over the playtime of the video.
Regarding claims 8-10, Garcia et al. disclose all but fail to specifically disclose wherein the video server is configured to store a plurality of different videos, and wherein the display arrangement is configured to display at least two of the different videos simultaneously; and wherein each of the plurality of different videos is linked to at least one marking mask (M), which includes at least one user-interactable display segment; and wherein the processing unit (40) is further configured to operate the display arrangement to receive, in response to a user's input for selecting one of the videos stored on the video server to be displayed, at least two different videos from the video server and display the received videos simultaneously. In an analogous art, Cansino et al. disclose wherein the video server is configured to store a plurality of different videos, and wherein the display arrangement is configured to display at least two of the different videos simultaneously; and wherein each of the plurality of different videos is linked to at least one marking mask, which includes at least one user-interactable display segment; and wherein the processing unit is further configured to operate the display arrangement to receive, in response to a user's input for selecting one of the videos stored on the video server to be displayed, at least two different videos from the video server and display the received videos simultaneously (See Fig. 18B).
Regarding claim 11, Cansino et al. disclose wherein the processing unit is configured to operate the display arrangement to perform at least one of start displaying the at least two different videos simultaneously, start displaying the at least two different videos after receiving of the at least two different videos from the video server has been completed, and start displaying the at least two different videos after a predetermined amount of video data for each of the at least two different videos has been received from the video server (See Fig.11).
Regarding claim 12, Cansino et al. disclose wherein the processing unit is further configured to operate the display arrangement, in response to the user input received by the input device, to perform at least one of start displaying the video/s, stop displaying the video/s, continue displaying the video/s, adjust a volume of a sound output, adjust a playback speed of the displayed video/s, forward the displayed video/s, and rewind the displayed video/s (See Fig. 10C, 18B).
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 4-5, 7, 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.
In claim 4, it is unclear what is meant by “wherein the at least one user-interactable display segment is formed corresponding to an object visible in the video when displayed.
In claim 5, it is also unclear what is meant by the limitation “ wherein at least one of the shape of the at least one user-interactable display segment and the position of the at least one user-interactable display is variable over the playtime of the video.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the shape" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 7, it is unclear whether the statement “accompanying text information is generated based on text information visible in the video when displayed, wherein, optionally, the accompanying text information represents a translation of text, which visible in the video when displayed, into another language. “ it is unclear whether the text information is repeated twice : once in the video and once as accompanying text information.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 15 drawn to a computer readable recording medium. In the specification PGPUB version paragraphs 0058, 0105, 0155, 0171, defines the claimed computer readable recording medium as “…computer program product may be stored on a computer readable recording medium”, which is open ended to interpretation (this is considered to be equivalent to a signal).
A ”signal” embodying functional descriptive material is neither a process or a product (i.e. a tangible “thing”) and therefore does not fall within one of the four statutory classes of section 101. Rather , “signal” is a form of energy , in the absence of any physical structure or tangible material.
Because the full scope of the claim as properly read in light of the disclosure encompasses non-statutory subject matter, the claim as a whole is non-statutory.
Further action is required, as it is suggested to consider amending to the terms “non-transitory computer readable medium”.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/895,343 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application recites: .
An automotive infotainment video player system comprising: a video server configured to store at least one video the video being linked to at least one marking mask, which includes at least one user-interactable display segment; a display arrangement configured to display the video linked to the at least one marking mask, an input device configured to receive a user input, which includes a user’s interaction with the user-interactable display segment of the marking mask that is linked to the video which is displayed by the display arrangement; and a processing unit configured to operate the display arrangement in response to the user input, which is received by the input
Claim 1 of application 18/895,343 recites an automotive infotainment video server system comprising: a video server configured to store a plurality of different videos; a display arrangement configured to display at least two different videos simultaneously; an input device configured to receive a user input for selecting one of the videos stored on the video server to be displayed; and a processing unit configured to operate the display arrangement to receive, in response to a user’s input for selecting one of the videos stored on the video server to be displayed, at least two different videos from the video server and display the received videos simultaneously. Though the prior art does not disclose a video server configured to store at least one video being linked to at least one marking mask, it discloses a video server to store a plurality of different videos. Therefore it encompassed the limitation of the claim of the present application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the video server to store one or many videos since it would have achieved a desired result for a video player for analyzing automotive infotainment systems.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zeinstra et al. (U.S. Pub No. 20150339031) disclose a method for contextually reconfiguring a user interface in a vehicle includes receiving context information for the vehicle, determining a vehicle context including at least one of a location of the vehicle and a condition of the vehicle based on the context information, determining one or more control options based on the vehicle context, and causing the user interface to display one or more selectable icons. The icons are displayed in response to the determined vehicle context and selecting an icon initiates one or more of the context-based control options.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERTRUDE ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE whose telephone number is (571)272-6954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:30-8:00 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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/GERTRUDE ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661