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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “indicting”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US 2011/0164053 A1) in view of Boyagian et al. (US 2020/0233567 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura discloses a display apparatus for a vehicle (e.g. Fig. 2: 3), the display apparatus comprising:
a display (e.g. Fig. 9) comprising a first region (e.g. Fig. 9: AV region & navigation region) in which provided content is to be displayed and a second region (e.g. Figs. 9 & 17-19: link icons on the navigation region) in which a link icon linking to the content is to be displayed;
a touch sensor (e.g. Fig. 2: touch panel 21);
a display control unit (e.g. Fig. 2: 22) configured to execute display control that controls a display mode of the display; and
a storage (e.g. Fig. 2 & [0073-0076]: data are stored in memory 17) configured to store an upper limit of expansion of a display area (e.g. Figs. 17-19: expanded display area 61b, 62 indicates the upper limit of expansion, and limit of the expanded display area is stored since it is pre-configured) of the second region and data on the display mode of the display (e.g. Fig. 2 & [0073-0076]: data are stored in memory 17),
wherein the display control unit is configured to execute the display control to cause a display area of the second region to be smaller than a display area of the first region (e.g. Figs. 9 & 17-19: link icons are smaller than the AV region and navigation region), and execute, when the touch sensor detects an operation made by an occupant of the vehicle on the link icon displayed in the second region, the display control to expand a rendering region of the second region, based on the operation made by the occupant, to or below the upper limit of expansion of the display area of the second region (e.g. Figs. 17-19: link icon), while the content continues to be displayed in the first region (e.g. Figs. 17-19: display of the link icon superimposes on the screen, but the display contents of the AV region and the navigation region continue to show), and the display area of the second region is kept smaller than the display area of the first region (e.g. Figs. 17-19: link icon is enlarged by kept smaller than the entire screen).
Nakamura fails to disclose, but Boyagian teaches the operation is a swipe operation and the enlargement of the link icon is based on a completion position of the swiping operation made by the occupant (e.g. Figs. 11-13 & [0047, 0053, 0054]: swipe on an icon to activate the functions).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nakamura with the teachings of Boyagian to utilize swiping as an activation command to enlarge or diminish a link icon since Boyagian teaches swiping gesture on a touch screen to control command is well-known in the art. Replacing the touch command with a swiping gesture command is merely simple substitutions of one known method with another, and utilizing a well-known technique on a well-known device is routine skill in the art and would have yielded only predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura discloses the display control unit is configured to cause additional information supplementing information indicating the content to be displayed, in accordance with the expansion of the rendering region of the second region (e.g. Figs. 17-19).
Regarding claim 3, Nakamura discloses the display control unit is configured to enlarge at least one of a display size of the link icon or a display size of the additional information, in accordance with the expansion of the rendering region of the second region (e.g. Figs. 17-19).
Regarding claim 4, Nakamura discloses the link icon is a functionality setting icon, and the display control unit is configured to cause a setting screen to be displayed in the second region when the functionality setting icon is tapped by the occupant after the expansion of the rendering region of the second region (e.g. Figs. 17-19).
Regarding claim 5, Nakamura discloses a display apparatus for a vehicle (e.g. Fig. 2: 3), the display apparatus comprising:
a display (e.g. Fig. 9) comprising a first region in which content is to be displayed (e.g. Fig. 9: AV region & navigation region) and a second region (e.g. Figs. 9 & 17-19: link icons on the navigation region) in which a link icon linking to the content is to be displayed;
a touch sensor (e.g. Fig. 2: touch panel 21);
one or more processors (e.g. Fig. 2: 22) configured to execute display control that controls a display mode of the display; and
one or more memories (e.g. Fig. 2 & [0073-0076]: data are stored in memory 17) communicably coupled to the one or more processors and configured to store an upper limit of expansion of a display area of the second region (e.g. Figs. 17-19: expanded display area 61b, 62 indicates the upper limit of expansion, and limit of the expanded display area is stored since it is pre-configured) and data on the display mode of the display,
wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
execute the display control to cause a display area of the second region to be smaller than a display area of the first region (e.g. Figs. 9 & 17-19: link icons are smaller than the AV region and navigation region); and
execute, when the touch sensor detects an operation made by an occupant of the vehicle on the link icon displayed in the second region on the display, the display control to expand a rendering region of the second region, based on a completion of the operation, to or below the upper limit of expansion of the display area of the second region (e.g. Figs. 17-19: link icon), while the content continues to be displayed in the first region (e.g. Figs. 17-19: display of the link icon superimposes on the screen, but the display contents of the AV region and the navigation region continue to show), and the display area of the second region is kept smaller than the display area of the first region (e.g. Figs. 17-19: link icon is enlarged by kept smaller than the entire screen).
Nakamura fails to disclose, but Boyagian teaches the operation is a swipe operation and the enlargement of the link icon is based on a completion position of the swiping operation made by the occupant (e.g. Figs. 11-13 & [0047, 0053, 0054]: swipe on an icon to activate the functions).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nakamura with the teachings of Boyagian to utilize swiping as an activation command to enlarge or diminish a link icon since Boyagian teaches swiping gesture on a touch screen to control command is well-known in the art. Replacing the touch command with a swiping gesture command is merely simple substitutions of one known method with another, and utilizing a well-known technique on a well-known device is routine skill in the art and would have yielded only predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US 2011/0164053 A1) in view of Boyagian et al. (US 2020/0233567 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gray (US 9,798,443 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Nakamura and Boyagian in combination fails to disclose, but Gray teaches the display control unit is configured to: determine whether an amount of the swiping operation made by the occupant is less than a predetermined upper limit (e.g. Fig. 3C: upper limit);
in response to determining that the amount of the swiping operation is less than the predetermined upper limit, expand the rendering region of the second region based on the amount of the swiping operation (e.g. Figs. 3A-3B & claim 7: swiping amount less than upper limit); and
in response to determining that the amount of the swiping operation is not less than the predetermined upper limit, expand the rendering region of the second region based on the predetermined upper limit (e.g. Fig. 3C: swiping amount equal or greater than upper limit).
Boyagian teaches there are three or more display sizes to toggle between the normal view and expanded view of the second display area (that is still smaller than the first display area; e.g. Figs. 7A-7B, 9A-9B: first display area 700A, 700B and second display area 304), and Gray teaches it is known to utilize swiping amount to adjust display size.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nakamura and Boyagian with the teachings of Gray to adjust display size based on swiping amount. The modification would have yielded only predictable results since it is merely applying known technique (Gray: control display size based on swipe amount) to known device (Boyagian: toggle between normal and expand view based on swipe gesture) with reasonable expectations of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5, the examiner disagrees with the following reason(s):
As shown in Figs. 9 & 17-19, second display area 62 is expanded into display area 61b;
Claimed limitation does not clearly define there is difference between “pop-up” as argued and “enlarge” or “expand” as claimed. Display area 62 in the drawings clearly enlarged or expanded into display area 61b, and they are both considered as “second display area” since they both representing the same element in the invention of Nakamura;
“completion position of the swiping operation” is inherently disclosed by Boyagian. When swiping is detected by Boyagian, it inherently implies there is an amount of swiping required for the system to detect the swiping operation (e.g. Fig. 11 & [0053]); and, that implied amount is broadly interpreted as “completion position”.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to newly added claim(s) 6 are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAM WAN MA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3693. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/KAM WAN MA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights