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 1, 2, 3, and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “the one or more pieces of display content” (pg. 1, lines 23-24) should be “the one or more items of display content” for basis with “one or more items of display content” (pg. 1, lines 14-15).
Similar to claim 1, “the one or more items of display content” for claim 2 (pg. 2, lines 9-10), claim 3 (pg. 3, lines 2-3), and claim 6 (pg. 4, lines 27-28) should be “the one or more items of display content”.
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.
Claims 1, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada et al. (JP 2011034155 A, hereinafter Wada), in view of Ishibashi (JP 7048358 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Wada teaches a display control device comprising: ([0015] “In Figure 1, 1 is a display device provided for monitoring and controlling various plants and power systems.”)
a memory; ([0008] “a recording medium that stores a display control program, which, in the event of a screen failure in a display device such as a power grid monitoring and control system, can quickly switch displays according to the display priority without requiring much effort to switch displays”)
and a processor connected to the memory, the processor being configured to execute: ([0015] “In Figure 1, 1 is a display device provided for monitoring and controlling various plants and power systems. The display device 1 is equipped with a display processing unit 3 that processes the content necessary for monitoring and control to be shown to operators according to its display priority”)
detection processing for detecting a malfunctioning display that has malfunctioned from among a plurality of displays; ([0021] “In this state, if a malfunction occurs in the upper left screen of the display screen 2a of the output display unit 2, for example, and the information content of information name A(1), which has the highest display priority, cannot be displayed, the fault detection automatic notification means 7 detects the screen malfunction of the upper left screen of the display screen 2a and notifies the display priority determination means 9 of the screen malfunction information and the location information of the malfunctioning screen.”)
display content selection processing for, when the malfunctioning display is detected, selecting, based on a priority level for display set for each of a plurality of items of display content displayed in the plurality of displays before the malfunctioning display was detected, one or more items of display content for which the priority level is higher among the plurality of items of display content; ([0022] “Upon receiving notification that a screen has malfunctioned, the display priority determination means 9 determines which information content to display on the healthy screens remaining undamaged among the display screens 2a, and their respective display positions, based on the location information of the malfunctioning screen, the information content that is no longer displayed, and the display priority of each information content stored in the display priority data 5.”)
and display switching processing for causing each of the one or more items of display content to be displayed at the display position of a corresponding one of the one or more items of display content ([0022] “the information name H(8) with the lowest display priority, which is priority rank 8, is deleted” or [0036] “Furthermore, the display priority determination means 15 decides to move the information name E(5) on the lower center screen, which has a priority ranking of 5, to the lower left screen, and to display the information content of information names A-1(1) and A-2(1), which have a display priority ranking of 1 and can no longer be displayed adjacently due to a screen malfunction, on the upper center screen and lower center screen, respectively, without altering their configuration, and to display the information names C(3) and F(6) on the upper right screen and lower right screen without changing their positions, and updates and saves the display position data 8 as shown in Figure 9”).
Wada fails to teach display position determination processing for determining, based on a tolerance level for a display position change set for each of the plurality of items of display content, a display position of each of the one or more items of display content in one or more of the plurality of displays aside from the malfunctioning display, to cause a displacement of display content for which the tolerance level is lower among the one or more pieces of display content to be smaller, the displacement being a displacement from a position at which a corresponding one of the one or more items of display content had been displayed before the malfunctioning display was detected. However, this is known in the art as taught by Ishibashi.
Ishibashi teaches display position determination processing for determining, based on a tolerance level for a display position change set for each of the plurality of items of display content, a display position of each of the one or more items of display content in one or more of the plurality of displays aside from the malfunctioning display, to cause a displacement of display content for which the tolerance level is lower among the one or more pieces of display content to be smaller, ([0083] “However, high-priority content, such as display content to warn of obstacles, will not be subject to relocation.”, where “Furthermore, the display positions after the change reflect the priority assigned to each display content, allowing for the rearrangement of high-priority and low-priority display content using different conditions.” [0018], and “the display content is rearranged according to changes in importance,” [0080]. Note: the priority based on “changes in importance” is mapped to tolerance level, but rather the “changes in importance” to be higher while tolerance level is lower.)
the displacement being a displacement from a position at which a corresponding one of the one or more items of display content had been displayed before the malfunctioning display was detected; ([0082] “For example, display content such as warnings about obstacles, road signs, and road markings must be displayed in accordance with the actual location of obstacles and roads. On the other hand, display content that shows conditions such as the vehicle's speed does not need to be positioned to overlap with the actual image”. Note: the “actual image” obscures the display of the driver in a similar fashion to a malfunctioning display, therefore, mapped to the malfunctioning display).
Ishibashi is analogous to the claimed invention, as both relate to rearranging vehicle display content to make visible to the driver. Ishibashi further teaches that “Furthermore, by limiting the timing of repositioning to only when there is a significant change in importance, frequent repositioning can be avoided, eliminating decreased visibility and inconvenience.” [0080]. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ishibashi to Wada in order to allow easier viewing of the display without inconvenience.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Wada and Ishibashi teaches the display control device according to claim 1, wherein in the display switching processing, when the malfunctioning display recovers, the processor causes each of the plurality of items of display content to be displayed at a position where the corresponding one of the plurality of items of display content had been displayed before the malfunctioning display was detected (Wada; [0057] “When the malfunctioning screen is restored and activated by the automatic malfunction recovery detection notification means 35, it has the function of restoring the display position data before the screen malfunction detection, which was stored in the display position data data before the screen malfunction detection 36, to the display position data 8.”).
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1, but in a method form. The combination of Wada and Ishibashi further teaches a display control method performed by a computer, the display control method comprising: (Wada; [0008] “a display control program, which, in the event of a screen failure in a display device such as a power grid monitoring and control system, can quickly switch displays according to the display priority without requiring much effort to switch displays, and which are unlikely to disrupt the operation of power grids, etc.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, and 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 2, the closest prior art of Ishibashi teaches in the display position determination processing, the processor determines the display position of the one or more pieces of display content by determining a position in the one or more of the plurality of displays to cause a displacement of an image indicating the display content for which the tolerance level is lower among the one or more images to be smaller, ([0083] “However, high-priority content, such as display content to warn of obstacles, will not be subject to relocation.”, where “Furthermore, the display positions after the change reflect the priority assigned to each display content, allowing for the rearrangement of high-priority and low-priority display content using different conditions.” [0018], and “the display content is rearranged according to changes in importance,” [0080]. Note: the priority based on “changes in importance” is mapped to tolerance level, but rather the “changes in importance” to be higher while tolerance level is lower.)
the displacement being a displacement from a position at which an image indicating the corresponding one of the one or more items of display content had been displayed before the malfunctioning display was detected, ([0082] “For example, display content such as warnings about obstacles, road signs, and road markings must be displayed in accordance with the actual location of obstacles and roads. On the other hand, display content that shows conditions such as the vehicle's speed does not need to be positioned to overlap with the actual image”. Note: the “actual image” obscures the display of the driver in a similar fashion to a malfunctioning display, therefore, mapped to the malfunctioning display).
and in the display switching processing, the processor causes each of the one or more items of display content to be displayed at the display position of the corresponding one of the one or more items of display content by causing each of the one or more images to be displayed at the position determined ([0042] “In other words, the superimposed drawing control unit 12 displays the above-mentioned display content as a virtual image within the driver's field of view 19, thereby supporting safe driving.”).
However, Ishibashi fails to teach the combined limitation as a whole, “wherein in the display content selection processing, the processor selects the one or more items of display content to make an area of one or more images indicating the one or more items of display content, and having a same size as an image that indicated same display content before the malfunctioning display was detected, no greater than an area of a display region of the one or more of the plurality of displays, in the display position determination processing.”
Furthermore, no prior art of record either alone or in combination teaches the above limitation as a whole. Therefore, claim 2 is considered allowable.
Regarding claim 3, the closest prior art of Ishibashi teaches “in the display position determination processing, the processor determines the display position of the one or more pieces of display content by determining a position in the one or more of the plurality of displays to cause a displacement of an image indicating the display content for which the tolerance level is lower among the one or more images to be smaller, the displacement being a displacement from a position at which an image indicating the corresponding one of the one or more items of display content had been displayed before the malfunctioning display was detected, and in the display switching processing, the processor causes each of the one or more items of display content to be displayed at the display position of the corresponding one of the one or more items of display content by causing each of the one or more images to be displayed at the position determined”, see claim 2.
However, Ishibashi fails to teach the combined limitation as a whole, “wherein in the display content selection processing, the processor selects the one or more items of display content to make an area of one or more images indicating one or more items of display content, and at least one of which is a reduced image obtained by reducing an image that indicated same display content before the malfunctioning display was detected or a replacement image replacing the image that indicated the same display content before the malfunctioning display was detected, no greater than an area of a display region of the one or more of the plurality of displays, in the display position determination processing.”
Furthermore, no prior art of record either alone or in combination teaches the above limitation as a whole. Therefore, claim 3 is considered allowable.
Regarding claim 5, the closest prior art of Ishibashi teaches wherein the plurality of displays includes at least one of a display that is disposed in front of a driver’s seat of a vehicle and that displays two or more items of display content among the plurality of items of display content (Figure 2)
However, Ishibashi fails to teach the combined limitation as a whole, “a display that is disposed in front of a passenger seat of the vehicle and that displays two or more items of display content among the plurality of items of display content, a display that is included in an electronic side mirror on a right side of the vehicle and that displays one item of display content among the plurality of items of display content, a display that is included in an electronic side mirror on a left side of the vehicle and that displays one item of display content among the plurality of items of display content, a display that is included in an electronic rear-view mirror of the vehicle and that displays one item of display content among the plurality of items of display content, or a display that is provided for a rear seat of the vehicle and that displays one or more items of display content among the plurality of items of display content.”
Furthermore, no prior art of record either alone or in combination teaches the above limitation as a whole. Therefore, claim 5 is considered allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA HA whose telephone number is (571)272-3601. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM, and Fri 9:30 AM - 1:30 PM.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571) 272-7794. 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.
/KEE M TUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/ALICIA HA/Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights