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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-5 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 1 is rejected as being indefinite for reciting an information processing device –
“comprising a processor, the processor being configured to increase a brightness of an intra-vehicle monitor provided in front of a driver seat, and display,
overlaid on the monitor,
a specifying layer in which,
among vehicle information related to a vehicle displayed at the monitor,
an opacity of a first region,
which is a specifying region at which is displayed first information that is specified information,
is made lower than an opacity of a second region at which is displayed second information that is the vehicle information other than the specified information.”
The claim is not written in a clear manner so as to allow the reader to definitively ascribe the structural characteristics/functions to their respective elements since the claim reads awkwardly.
For instance, “a specifying layer in which, among vehicle information related to a vehicle displayed at the monitor, an opacity of a first region, which is a specifying region….” This phrasing is confusing since there are recited conditions with no subsequent verb/action/function.
The claim is replete with phrasing that makes it difficult to ascertain which elements are being assigned which functions due to the multiple interrupting conditions/clauses stemming from the initial display. As such, the metes and bounds of Claim 1 cannot be readily ascertained as currently recited.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent from claim 1 and, thus, inheriting the deficiencies of claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. 6,625,562 to Hayashi et al. in view of U.S. Pat. 8,225,229 to Thorn et al.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Hayashi discloses:
an information processing device, comprising a processor (At least controller, 20 having memory and processing means),
the processor being configured to increase a brightness of an intra-vehicle monitor provided in front of a driver seat (At least where the ‘Summary of the Invention’ section discusses, “display adapted to produce an observable indication of a current rpm value for a current gear and an observable indication of at least one predicted rpm value for a different gear” in response to the ‘Background of the Invention’ section where the problem that the invention solves discusses that, “it is impossible for a driver to even know the peak torque value and the peak power value under all conditions”), and
display, overlaid on the monitor, a specifying layer in which, among vehicle information related to a vehicle displayed at the monitor, an opacity of a first region, which is a specifying region at which is displayed first information that is specified information (At least the changes in RPM), is made lower than an opacity of a second region at which is displayed second information that is the vehicle information other than the specified information (At least via the lighting changes occurring across Fig. 2a-4b where the RPM changes are occurring and lighting up the bar graph of the RPM range vs. for example, other gauges, 34).
Though Hayashi discloses that RPM changes are indicated through changing lit up portions of the tachometer, Hayashi is silent regarding a “a specifying layer” and a “first and second region” having different opacities. In Hayashi, it is desirable to have the increased amount of information for a driver for performance reasons; however, it is undesirable to have an increased amount of information for a driver to consider when compared with a typical tachometer due to the sheer amount of information on a display that a driver would need to visually inspect and mentally process while driving.
Hayashi relates to the art of providing a digital display screen (Hayashi discloses as an example, a CRT screen, an LED screen, a LCD screen, a digital gauge or meter, etc.), which provides digital information to the user. Similarly, Thorn teaches a device which provides information to a user on a screen in which the device adjusts brightness/darkness of various regions of a digital display (Thorn discusses at least a LCD screen, a CRT screen, an OLED screen, etc.). Thorn teaches a device where a user gazes upon a display screen and the device tracks a user’s gaze to brighten a region of the screen at which the user is looking and dimming another region where the user’s gaze is not looking. Thorn clearly shows, in at least Fig. 4 and its associated portions of the specification, that gaze direction/non-direction is measured and various regions of the screen are assigned darkness/brightness levels based on gaze/non-gaze locations on the screen to achieve the “specifying layer” and “regions”. At least Fig. 5A-6B and their respective portions of the specification also show the darkness/brightness assignments based on the gaze tracking. Thus, Thorn teaches that adjusting opacity of different regions of a screen based on a user’s gaze is well known in the digital screen/display art and applying a known technique
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified Hayashi to have a specifying layer and first/second different opacity regions of a screen by providing the user gaze-based screen luminosity adjustment device as taught by Thorn since Thorn has used a known technique (gaze-based tracking for screen brightness adjustment) to improve a similar device (a digital display screen). At the time of effective filing, a PHOSITA would have appreciated that applying the known technique of regional screen brightness/ darkness adjustment based on user gaze, as disclosed by Thorn, to the known screen device of Hayashi where a user gazes upon the screen and needs quick, focused information while driving, renders Hayashi ready for improvement by the device of Thorn to yield the predictable results of allowing a user to quickly see the information that is needed while the unneeded portions of the screen are dimmed for non-consideration during particular driving moments with specific driving informational needs.
It has been held that where there is a reason to modify or combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention, the claims may be rejected as prima facie obvious provided there is also a reasonable expectation of success. The reasonable expectation of success requirement refers to "the likelihood of success" in combining or modifying prior art disclosures to meet the limitations of the claimed invention. See Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1375, 2023 USPQ2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2023) and Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367, 119 USPQ2d 1171, 1176 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Additionally, even though Hayashi does not expressly discuss “a driver seat,” it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have recognized that Hayashi’s invention is used in front of a driver’s seat since the disclosed issue overcome by the invention includes driver knowledge of vehicle performance during motor vehicle operation, thus necessitating a seat for the driver to produce an advantageous solution over the prior art (discussed above).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, the primary reference, Hayashi, discloses that
the processor is configured to display the first information (At least the RPM range) at the monitor based on a permission condition for changing a travel performance (At least when the RPMs are changing; See at least Fig. 2A-4B) of the vehicle having been established.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, the primary reference, Hayashi, discloses that
the first information is a shift-up indicator that notifies a driver of the vehicle of a timing for shifting gear upward (At least the 5th gear bar of Fig. 2B indicating timing for shifting into 5th gear from 4th gear), and
the processor is configured to display the shift-up indicator at an uppermost part among the vehicle information displayed at the monitor (At least shown in Fig. 2B where the shift-up row information is displayed at the top of the entire set of gears and their associated RPM ranges where an upshift and a downshift can occur).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, the primary reference, Hayashi, discloses that
the shift-up indicator comprises a plurality of gauges that are aligned along a predetermined direction in the monitor and that are illuminated in conjunction with an increase in engine speed of the vehicle (At least the RPM ranges depicted in Fig. 2A-4B), and
the processor is configured to, in conjunction with the increase in engine speed, gradually light the gauges from respective ends towards a center (At least the RPM ranges depicted in Fig. 2A-4B) in the predetermined direction, and to change an illumination color of the gauges in accordance with the engine speed (Hayashi discloses using “different, unique color at RPM values above a maximum recommended or “redline” RPM value” and also can use different colors for the “various scale divisions” which are associated with different RPMs).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, the primary reference, Hayashi, discloses that
the processor is configured to change the illumination color of all of the gauges to a specific color for use when illuminating all of the gauges in a case in which all of the plurality of gauges are illuminated (At least where Hayashi discloses, “As best shown in FIGS. 2A to 2C, the scale divisions 38, 46, 52, 58 of the illustrated embodiment are of a different, unique color at rpm values above a maximum recommended or "redline" rpm value 66 of the engine 12.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Specifically, other references for Applicant’s consideration include:
U.S. Pat. 6,115,008 to Palalau et al., which discloses programmable, informative screen electrodes.
U.S. Pat. 6,133,852 to Tonkin, which discloses sequential, progressive lateral indicator lighting.
U.S. Pat. 7,589,643 to Dagci et al., which discloses various colors within the same RPM range to reflect various RPM statuses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brodie Follman whose telephone number is (571)270-1169. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm EST M-F.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571)270-7429. 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.
/BRODIE J FOLLMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669