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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10 March 2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“control unit is configured to…” in claims 25, 27, 28 and 30-31 (Page 9, lines 26-27 state “A control unit of the system (e.g. onboard computer of the vehicle)…”
Since “computer” is generic, this limitation is a computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, which requires an algorithm. However, no algorithm is disclosed. See MPEP § 2181 II.B.).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 25-28 and 30-31 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 limitation “control unit is configured to…” in claims 25, 27, 28 and 30-31 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. While the specification on page 9, lines 26-27 states “A control unit of the system (e.g. onboard computer of the vehicle)…” since “computer” is generic, this limitation is a computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, which requires an algorithm. However, no algorithm is disclosed.
See MPEP § 2181 II.B: “The corresponding structure is not simply a general purpose computer by itself but the special purpose computer as programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. Thus, the specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general purpose microprocessor to the special purpose computer. See Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338, 86 USPQ2d at 1241.” And “Mere reference to a general purpose computer with appropriate programming without providing an explanation of the appropriate programming, or simply reciting "software" without providing detail about the means to accomplish a specific software function, would not be an adequate disclosure of the corresponding structure to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239; Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340-41, 86 USPQ2d at 1623.”
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 26 is rejected due to its dependency from claim 25.
For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret that any structure that performs the claimed functions to be the “control unit” as claimed.
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.
Claims 14-18, 20-25 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeon et al. (US 2018/0130449).
Regarding claim 14, Jeon et al. disclose a method for operating a touch-sensitive display device designed for displaying at least two control areas (Figure 12 shows a method. Figure 6, 650 and paragraph [0136] explain that the display is a touch-sensitive display device, and that there are one or more areas, see also Figures 7(a)-(d), for example.), the method comprising:
determining at least one relative position of at least a first user of a set of users comprising one or more users in relation to the display device (Figure 12, S1202-S1210 and paragraph [0153].);
assigning at least one of the at least two control areas to the first user (Figure 12, S1212 and paragraph [0189] and Figures 7(a)-(d) and paragraph [0154].); and
arranging the at least two control areas on the display device based at least in part on the assignment to the first user and the relative position of the first user in relation to the display device (Figure 12, S1214 and paragraph [0190], and Figures 7(a)-(d) and paragraph [0154].).
Regarding claim 15, Jeon et al. disclose the method as claimed in claim 14, wherein the arranging of the at least two control areas comprises arranging a control area assigned to the first user at a position on the display device that is closer to the first user than to a second user of the set of users (Figures 7(a)-(d), the driver area is closer to the driver than the passenger and vice versa.).
Regarding claim 16, Jeon et al. disclose the method as claimed in claim 14, further comprising determining which of the at least two control areas is or are relevant to the set of users, and wherein arranging the at least two control areas comprises arranging only control areas relevant to the set of users (Figures 7(a)-7(d) and paragraph [0154], when there is not a passenger and thus only a driver, then “3” is not provided as in (c) whereas when there is a passenger then “3” is provided as in (a), and thus the arrangement of control areas is relevant to the set of users.).
Regarding claim 17, Jeon et al. disclose the method as claimed in claim 16, wherein:
one of the at least two control areas is shown in duplicate if it is assigned to two users of the set of users (Paragraph [0148]), and
a first of the duplicate control areas being arranged closer to one of the two users and a second of the duplicate control areas being arranged closer to another of the two users (Figures 7(a)-(d), the specified areas are arranged closer to the detected users. For example, “1” is located for the driver in the driver area and “3” is located for the passenger in the passenger area. Where, as explained in paragraph [0148], the areas can be duplicates.).
Regarding claim 18, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 17.
Regarding claim 20, Jeon et al. disclose the method as claimed in claim 14, further comprising
determining which of the at least two control areas is or are relevant to the set of users, wherein arranging the at least two control areas comprises arranging only control areas relevant to the set of users (Figures 7(a)-(b) versus Figures (c)-(d): “3” is only included when there is a passenger, for example, and the arranging then only arranged control areas relevant to the set of users.).
Regarding claim 21, Jeon et al. disclose the method as claimed in claim 14, wherein determining at least one relative position comprises determining the at least one relative position using a camera (Paragraph [0127]).
Regarding claim 22, Jeon et al. disclose the method as claimed in claim 14, wherein determining at least one relative position comprises determining the at least one relative position using seat occupancy information relating to a seat provided for the first user (Paragraphs [0127] and [0156], where weight is “seat occupancy information,” where the first user is the passenger.).
Regarding claim 23, Jeon et al. disclose a non-transitory storage medium (Figure 6, 630) comprising program code (Figure 12), which carries out the method as claimed in claim 14 (See claim 14 above.) when the program code is executed on a processor (Figure 6, 620), a computer or programmable hardware.
Regarding claim 24, Jeon et al. disclose a system (Figure 6) comprising a touch-sensitive display device (Figure 6, 650 and paragraph [0136]) designed for displaying at least two control areas (Figure 7), wherein the system comprises a control unit (Figure 6, 620/640) designed to carry out a method as claimed in claim 14 (See claim 14 above.).
Regarding claim 25, Jeon et al. disclose the system as claimed in claim 24, wherein:
the system is configured for use in a vehicle (Figure 1), and
the control unit is configured to perform arranging the at least two control areas by showing each of the at least two control areas on the display device in a larger size when a quantity of users is lower than when the quantity of users is higher (Figure 7(a) versus Figure 7(c): 1 and 2 are larger when there is not a passenger and smaller when there is a passenger, i.e. larger size when a quantity of users is lower than when the quantity of users is higher.).
Regarding claim 31, Jeon et al. disclose a vehicle comprising a system as claimed in one of claim 24, wherein the control unit is configured to perform arranging the at least two control areas on the touch-sensitive display device flexibly on the basis of a vehicle occupancy of the vehicle (Figures 7(a)-(b) versus Figures 7(c)-(d) and paragraph [0154]).
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.
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.
Claims 19 and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 2018/0130449) in view of Spiewla et al. (US 2018/0357040).
Regarding claim 19, Jeon et al. disclose the method as claimed in claim 14, wherein:
the set of users comprises a plurality of users (See Figure 12, for example, there is a driver and passenger), and assigning the at least one of the at least two control areas comprises assigning one of the set of users none of the control areas (Paragraphs [0179]-[0183]: an unregistered user can be registered to have no function authority, see Figure 11, and thus would not have any control areas.).
Jeon et al. fail to explicitly teach arranging the at least two control areas on the display device in such a way that they cannot be reached from a position of the one of the set of users.
Spiewla et al. disclose wherein a passenger display is provided in the rear seats in the vehicle (Figure 3 and paragraph [0033].).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of the actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In combination Jeon et al. performs the same function as it does separately of providing different control areas for different users, and Spiewla et al. performs the same function as it does separately of providing displays for rear passenger users.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in providing displays in the front and rear of the vehicle.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Thus, in the combination, the user in the backseat can be registered as a user without any function authority and thus none of the control areas would be assigned. The user in the backseat cannot reach the front seat, and thus the control areas for the driver are arranged on the display device int eh front in such a way that they cannot be reached from a position of the one [rear passenger] of the set of users.
Regarding claim 26, Jeon et al. disclose the system as claimed in claim 25.
Jeon et al. fail to teach wherein the display device comprises at least two physically separate display elements.
Spiewla et al. disclose wherein a display device comprises at least two physically separate display elements (Figure 3 and paragraph [0033].).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of the actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In combination Jeon et al. performs the same function as it does separately of providing different control areas for different users, and Spiewla et al. performs the same function as it does separately of providing displays for rear passenger users.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in providing at least two physically separate display elements.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 27, Jeon et al. disclose the system as claimed in claim 25, the control unit is configured to perform arranging the at least two control areas exclusively for the driver responsive to a determination that one or more users are unauthorized to operate the display device (Paragraphs [0179]-[0183]: an unregistered user can be registered to have no function authority, i.e. unauthorized, see Figure 11, and thus would not have any control areas, and thus the control areas would be “exclusively for the driver.”).
Jeon et al. fail to teach wherein:
the display device comprises a front seat display and a rear seat display, and
the control unit is configured to perform arranging the at least two control areas exclusively on the front seat display responsive to a determination that a rear seat of the vehicle holds one or more users who are unauthorized to operate the display device.
Spiewla et al. disclose wherein a display device comprises a front seat display and a rear seat display (Figure 3 and paragraph [0033].).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of the actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In combination Jeon et al. performs the same function as it does separately of providing different control areas for different users, and Spiewla et al. performs the same function as it does separately of providing displays for rear passenger users.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in providing displays in the front and rear of the vehicle.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Thus, in the combination, the user in the backseat can be registered as “unauthorized” such that the at least two control areas would be arranged exclusively on the front seat display.
Regarding claim 28, please refer to the rejection of claim 27, where Jeon et al. and Spiewla et al. further disclose wherein the system is configured for use in a vehicle (Jeon et al.: Figure 1, and Spiewla et al.: Figure 3).
Regarding claim 29, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 26.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 2018/0130449) in view of Moon et al. (US 2023/0059417).
Regarding claim 30, Jeon et al. disclose the system as claimed in claim 24, wherein:
the system is configured for use in a vehicle (Figure 1).
Jeon et al. fail to teach:
the display device comprises a front seat display and a rear seat display, and
the control unit is configured to deactivate the rear seat display if a rear seat of the vehicle holds no users.
Moon et al. disclose a system wherein:
the display device comprises a front seat display and a rear seat display (Figure 3D and paragraph [0048]), and
a control unit is configured to deactivate the rear seat display if a rear seat of the vehicle holds no users (Figure 7A and paragraph [0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the front and rear seat display teachings of Moon et al. in the vehicle system taught by Jeon et al. such that a rear search display can be deactivated when there is no user. The motivation to combine would have been in order to provide for enhanced user experience for a rear seat user, while also preserving power consumption when no user is present.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN G SHERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4pm ET.
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, AMR AWAD can be reached at (571)272-7764. 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.
/STEPHEN G SHERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
24 February 2026