CTFR 18/977,936 CTFR 77730 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. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The examiner notes the following references based upon updated search: US 20190202349 discloses that vehicles include visual systems (displays) to receive safety warnings (para 3) and displays information based upon vehicle state (402) sensor, environmental sensor (404 and emotional state (406) (Fig 4). US 20060050018 discloses a vehicle display that displayed information may be ranked hierarchy, where warning or alert (low on fuel) can be displayed (para 91). US 20250289459 (Fig 4, S108), discloses prohibiting the switching of a display contents. US 12,049,135 (Fig 4) (para 55) disclose displaying switching states which on (active or standby) or off. US 12,373,158 (Fig 3, S104) includes determines the restriction/appropriateness of a command for display. US 20170249718 (para 21, 46) where the driver input overrides the passenger input. US 20240375511 (para 8, 62) which identifies the driver, passenger as the person behind an input and only executes a corresponding action if the requesting occupant is permitted to do so (40, 56). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The examiner notes the claims have been amended to include “maintain a current display content”, where the examiner notes Fig 2 (S7) includes “continue to display current display content”. The examiner notes maintain current display content and continue to display current display content raise the issue of written description and support, where continuing to display a current content may also include a PIP, overlay for example, meaning the display could continue to display previous image data but is not restricted from displaying additional data. Maintaining a current display would mean no additional data/image can be displayed along with the previous display. In the event the applicant deems that maintain a current display and continue to display current display contents (S7, Fig 4) are inherent, and that nothing changes on the display (no overlay, PIP, multiple pictures) the examiner requests applicant to clarify such IAW MPEP Rule 1.105. 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 (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. 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim( s) 1, 2, 6,-7, 9-10, 13-14 and 17-18 i s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D eWind et al., US 2008/0266389 in view WUNDERLICH et al., US 20170249718. PNG media_image1.png 243 655 media_image1.png Greyscale T he claimed a control device is met by Control/microprocessor 582 (Fig 54, para 171) which controls the display content based upon a predetermined condition (triggering events) such as the vehicle gear being placed in Reverse (para 8, 80, 116-117, 120, 144, 147-150, 158-161, 171 and 181) for backup camera/aid, also for displaying warnings/alerts to the driver (para 143, 145, 149) and may change/adjust/reconfigure the display to another activating event (condition, trigger) (para 150) such as when the vehicle is low on fuel or missed/passed a waypoint (para 158, 159). As noted DeWind may include a retractable/extendable display with the mirror (Figs 2-3) and also a fixed display screen (Figs 44-45) The claimed not switch…the driver/occupant may override the event hierarchy of content being displayed by manually activating another one of the triggering events/systems/function (para 150, 174) which may be accomplished via a user input or the like (via voice or the like) where the The examiner notes that DeWind does not explicitly recite maintain the display, DeWind does disclose that the display screen may be activated/triggered by a hierarchy of events (para 148, 150) where warnings or low fuel alerts, can determine what events override other events, and also includes the overlays of information (Fig 53, para 81, 135, 209, 243-250). As stated by DeWind that a backing up the vehicle and the rear vision system is not overridden by an event such as navigational instruction. The examiner evidences WUNDERLICH et al., US 20170249718 which discloses that a driver input overrides a passenger input (Para 21, 46). KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) and include: a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; b) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; c) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; d) applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results: e) “obvious to try”—choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; f) known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and g) some teaching, suggestion, motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teaching to arrive at the claimed invention. As noted by the PTAB recent decision (12 July 2022): “ "The correct legal framework for obviousness does not involve divining the intention of an inventor of a prior art reference but, rather, involves determining 'what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art” Microsoft Word - IPR2021-00417 FD - Ready (law360news.com) The examiner notes in the prior art combination above also in view of KSR (a, c, d, e and g) provides expected results as noted above, where based upon a hierarchy of events including for vehicle safety, that if a predetermined switch (reverse operation) and the display of the rear camera was being switched/selected, the input from a passenger would be not permitted, in addition if a driver intentionally or not made selection (where the driver may be a temp driver, passenger may be instructor or vice-versa) would determine the proper display based upon safety first, where safety the display of information having a higher hierarchy would be maintained until that operation/notice was complete as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. In considering claim 2, The display device is mounted in a vehicle…as disclosed by DeWind the display is mounted to the inside rear view mirror (para 6-7, 10) or an overhead accessory (para 10-12), (Fig 16, 41, 44-46, 70, 72, 75, 91, 129, 187-189, 193-198, 200-202, 205-206, 208). The claimed specific display content…may be an image captured by a vehicle cameras (79-80, 148, 249) or a composite image generated by the NTSC analog or PAL camera or the like (para 248-250). In considering claim 6, Refer to claimed 1, where the apparatus of claim 1 performs the method as claimed. In considering claim 7, Refer to claim 1 for the steps/process performed. Regarding the non-transitory computer readable medium….Dewind discloses a system that may use appropriate software/hardware and circuitry to control the display (para 99-100, 240), including the display being able to connect to a portable computer/storage device (para 242) as well as using computer graphics (para 243) and the display may received/be connected to memory devices (para 240-241). In considering claim 9, Dewind discloses the system may use a touch screen, touch menu, touch interface (para 130, 146, 157, 237). Wunderlich disclose a touch-sensitive display (touch-screen) (para 3, 4, 5, 7-8, 13, 14, 18, 20, 22, 27, 30-35, 37, 39, 40). In considering claim 10, As noted in claim 1, Dewine disclose a hierarcy of events/priorities and warnings being display in accordance with vehicle operation The examiner notes Wunderlich discloses that the passenger may be prevent from (para 17) or (overridden by the driver (para 21,46). Thus in the broadest sense if a passenger tries to change a program, whether it is the same or different program being displayed, the display will continue to display the current program, since the driver and/or safety of the vehicle and what it display has hierarchy over a passenger selection, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. In considering claim 13, Refer to claim 9. In considering claim 14, Refer to claim 10 In considering claim 17, Refer to claim 9. In considering claim 18, Refer to claim 10 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeWind et al., US 2008/0266389 in view WUNDERLICH et al., US 20170249718 in view of Gregg, US 6,353,449. The examiner notes DeWind/WUNDERLICH does not explicitly recite the conventional features of judging a) that the input operation has been performed for greater than or equal to a predetermined number of times within a predetermined period of time or b) has been continued to be performed for a predetermined time period or more. The examiner notes (b) when controlling a display, it is known that when a user is actively (continuously) interacting with the display for a predetermined time period (or more) that indicates “user input”. The examiner evidences Gregg et al., Col 8, line 15-27 (claim 9) which discloses such conventional features. It is noted that Gregg discloses if the user is not continuously within a predetermined time period changing the display to a screensaver (display content change). The examiner notes one of ordinary skill in the art would include the advantages of Gregg of monitoring the user inputs including continuous within a time interval, to ensure the user a proper display based upon interaction or not with DeWind/Wunderlich which discloses that the user can override a display change/content validates the user request/input, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeWind et al., US 2008/0266389, WUNDERLICH et al., US 20170249718 in view of KING et al., US 20120139816. In considering claim 4, The examiner notes that a) DeWind discloses switching the display whether based upon driving forward or backward (reverse), speed and warnings (143, 145, 149, 154, 155, 170-171, 245). The examiner notes DeWind does disclose the controller may override any suppression of the display to ensure the user user input overriding the displaying/switching of content. (para 145, 149, 158, 209, 239. The examiner provides additional evidence for a display to override a user input to ensure safety of the vehicle/operator by overriding the user settings/actions as evidenced by KING. The examiner evidences KING et al., which discloses the system may override the user selection or settings to ensure driver’s safety (para 27) and also the displaying of critical information (para 27-29). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DeWind/Wunderlich with KING, where the display ensures a safe vehicle operation by displaying/notifying the driver/operator of critical information regardless of user input/setting, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. In considering claim 5, Dewind discloses the display can be changed based upon the speed (being lower or higher then a predetermined speed) as well as the shift position being in the forward…(para 149, 154, 155, 170, 171) The second switching includes a gear position being in reverse (para 8, 80, 101, 120, 139, 143, 147-150, 170-171, 249. Regarding the relative distance of objects, DeWind discloses the object sensing and distance sensing (para 81, 135, 170) can be included to warn/alert the driver, detected rearward or in the path of the vehicle. DeWind thus detects objects and provides markers, notification when objects are nearby and within distance markers to ensure the operator/driver is aware of any objects including pedestrians/vehicle when operating the vehicle . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 8, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeWind et al., US 2008/0266389, WUNDERLICH et al., US 20170249718 in view of Takae et al., US 2018032110 . In considering claims 8, 12 and 16, The examiner notes DeWind/Wunderlich do not explicitly recite “a fixed time” although they both describe user inputs on a display which may be based upon safety/driver-passenger settings and hierarchy of prioritizing display information. Regarding “fixed time” the examiner incorporates Takae et al., US 2018032110 (para 93, 95) which discloses the display may set a switching time (fixed time) between image which may be adjusted based upon the acceleration of the subject vehicle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to maintain a display of information for a certain period of time, based upon vehicle parameters (such as speed), operation (currently performing a reverse or maneuvering operation where camera operations are needed for safe operation), in addition to being obvious in view of KSR (a, c, d, e and g) which would provide expected results to ensure the display of information was displayed for a period of time after an input was performed, whether by the driver or passenger to ensure a safe vehicle operation, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 11, 15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeWind et al., US 2008/0266389, WUNDERLICH et al., US 20170249718 in view of Alex, US 20200380896 . In considering claims 11, 15, and 19, DeWind discloses that display switches may be activated or deactivated (para 136). Wunderlich discloses that the front-passenger may be prevented (para 17). However the above combination does not explicitly recite the ON state and OFF state. The examiner incorporates Alex, US 20200380896 which disclose the vehicle display may include a on/off switch to control the display content (para 100, 104 and 108). The combination above and in view of KSR (a, c, d, e and g) provides a system which can be based upon hierarcy, safety/warnings, vehicle status/operation and the input may be from the user and/or passenger which can determine appropriate action, in addition to switching or not the contents of the display based upon such vehicle status and hieararcy/safety, thus being obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention . Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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. 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure— see newly cited references on attached form PTO-892 . US 20220410807 discloses setting a wait time based on type of image (Figs 3-4). See discussion above with respect to the newly cited art (Response to Arguments). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian Yenke whose telephone number is (571)272-7359. The examiner work schedule is Monday-Thursday, 0730-1830 hrs. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s Supervisor, John Miller, can be reached at (571)272-7353. Any response to this action should be mailed to: Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks Washington, D.C. 20231 or faxed to: (571)-273-8300 Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2400 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is (703)305-HELP. General information about patents, trademarks, products and services offered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and other related information is available by contacting the USPTO’s General Information Services Division at: 800-PTO-9199 or 703-308-HELP (FAX) 703-305-7786 (TDD) 703-305-7785 An automated message system is available 7 days a week, 24 hours a day providing informational responses to frequently asked questions and the ability to order certain documents. Customer service representatives are available to answer questions, send materials or connect customers with other offices of the USPTO from 8:30 a.m. - 8:00p.m. EST/EDT, Monday-Friday excluding federal holidays. For other technical patent information needs, the Patent Assistance Center can be reached through customer service representatives at the above numbers, Monday through Friday (except federal holidays) from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST/EDT. The Patent Electronic Business Center (EBC) allows USPTO customers to retrieve data, check the status of pending actions, and submit information and applications. The tools currently available in the Patent EBC are Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) and the Electronic Filing System (EFS). PAIR (http://pair.uspto.gov) provides customers direct secure access to their own patent application status information, as well as to general patent information publicly available. EFS allows customers to electronically file patent application documents securely via the Internet. EFS is a system for submitting new utility patent applications and pre-grant publication submissions in electronic publication-ready form. EFS includes software to help customers prepare submissions in extensible Markup Language (XML) format and to assemble the various parts of the application as an electronic submission package. EFS also allows the submission of Computer Readable Format (CRF) sequence listings for pending biotechnology patent applications, which were filed in paper form. /BRIAN P YENKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422 Application/Control Number: 18/977,936 Page 2 Art Unit: 2422 Application/Control Number: 18/977,936 Page 3 Art Unit: 2422 Application/Control Number: 18/977,936 Page 4 Art Unit: 2422 Application/Control Number: 18/977,936 Page 5 Art Unit: 2422 Application/Control Number: 18/977,936 Page 6 Art Unit: 2422 Application/Control Number: 18/977,936 Page 7 Art Unit: 2422 Application/Control Number: 18/977,936 Page 8 Art Unit: 2422 Application/Control Number: 18/977,936 Page 9 Art Unit: 2422 Application/Control Number: 18/977,936 Page 10 Art Unit: 2422 Application/Control Number: 18/977,936 Page 11 Art Unit: 2422 Application/Control Number: 18/977,936 Page 12 Art Unit: 2422 Application/Control Number: 18/977,936 Page 13 Art Unit: 2422 Application/Control Number: 18/977,936 Page 14 Art Unit: 2422 Application/Control Number: 18/977,936 Page 15 Art Unit: 2422 Application/Control Number: 18/977,936 Page 16 Art Unit: 2422
Prosecution Insights