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 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 1-8 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cope et al (US 2008/0211652; hereinafter Cope), in view of Karpinsky (US 2011/0175754).
• Regarding claims 1, 4, and 5, Cope discloses a display control device, and associated method and non-transitory storage medium, comprising a processor configured to control, according to a mode of a power switch of a vehicle, display of an image display unit displaying an image toward an occupant of the vehicle (figures 2 and 10-13 and ¶ 100; where the claimed “power switch” is interpreted to encompass a gear selector such as the one required to move “the vehicle from park gear to drive gear”), wherein the display control device is configured to:
display travel information related to travel of the vehicle in a predetermined area of the image display unit in a case where the mode is a first vehicle mode in which the vehicle is able to travel (¶s 94-101; where the display of user-selected content is prohibited while a vehicle is not in park), and
display an image or a video that matches a preference of the occupant of the vehicle in the predetermined area in a case where the mode is a second vehicle mode in which the vehicle is configured to not travel (¶s 94 and 97; where the display of user-selected content is allowed while the vehicle is in park).
However, Cope fails to disclose the additional details of the display control device.
In the same field of endeavor, Karpinsky discloses where:
the predetermined area of the image display unit is smaller than an entire area of the image display unit (note the relative size of element 21 with respect to element 16 in figure 5 and ¶ 38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Cope according to the teachings of Karpinsky, for the purpose of providing on-demand information to a user of a vehicle base at least in part on user preferences (¶ 11).
• Regarding claims 2, 3, 6-8, and 11-15, Cope, in view of Karpinsky, discloses everything claimed, as applied to claim 1. Additionally, Cope discloses where:
Claim 2: the predetermined area is a center portion of the image display unit (at least suggested by “the display system … displays images associated with the external device on the display panel 202 at block 1516” in ¶ 99 and figure 2A; see also figure 5 of Karpinsky).
Claim 3: in a case where the mode is the second vehicle mode, the image or the video that matches the preference of the occupant of the vehicle is displayed in a part of the predetermined area (at least suggested by ¶ 99; see also figure 5 of Karpinsky); and
the part of the predetermined area is an upper part of the predetermined area of the image display unit in a vehicle up-down direction (at least suggested by ¶s 76 and 99; see also figure 5 and ¶ 40 of Karpinsky).
Claim 13: a first turn signal display light is displayed in the first outer edge portion (note the positions of elements 934 in figure 9B); and
a second turn signal display light is displayed in the second outer edge portion (note the positions of elements 934 in figure 9B).
Claim 14: in the second vehicle mode, the vehicle is configured to supply electric power to components of the vehicle, the components including the image display unit (inherent in ¶s 94 and 97).
Claim 15: the vehicle is prevented from traveling while in the second vehicle mode (“park” in ¶s 94 and 97).
However, Cope fails to disclose the additional details of the display control device.
In the same field of endeavor, Karpinsky discloses where:
Claim 6: a vertical center of the predetermined area is aligned with a vertical center of the image display unit in a left-right direction of the vehicle (figure 5); and
the predetermined area takes up a majority of a total area of the image display unit (figure 5, in view of ¶s 38-40).
Claim 7: a horizontal center of the predetermined area is not aligned with a horizontal center of the image display unit in an up-down direction of the vehicle (figure 5).
Claim 8: a bottom edge of the predetermined area is spaced apart from a primary bottom edge of the image display unit (figure 5).
Claim 11: the display control device is further configured to display the image or the video that matches the preference of the occupant regardless of whether an external device of the occupant is communicatively coupled to the display control device (¶s 38-40).
Claim 12 the display control device is further configured to display a first outer edge portion and a second outer edge portion (figure 5);
the first outer edge portion is positioned on a first side of the predetermined area in a left-right direction of the vehicle (figure 5);
the second outer edge portion is positioned on a second side of the predetermined area in the left-right direction of the vehicle, the second side being opposite to the first side (figure 5); and
the first outer edge portion and the second outer edge portion are positioned so as to not visually overlap the predetermined area (figure 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Cope according to the teachings of Karpinsky, for the purpose of providing on-demand information to a user of a vehicle base at least in part on user preferences (¶ 11).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cope et al (US 2008/0211652; hereinafter Cope), in view of Karpinsky, and further in view of Ezaki (US 2023/0009885).
• Regarding claims 9 and 10, Cope, in view of Karpinsky, discloses everything claimed, as applied to claim 7. However, Cope, in view of Karpinsky, fails to disclose the additional details of the display control device.
In the same field of endeavor, Ezaki discloses where:
Claim 9: when the image display unit displays a message or a notification within the predetermined area, the display control device resizes and repositions the image or the video so as to not visually overlap and to not be visually overlapped by the message or notification (¶s 50, 51, 55-57, and 84).
Claim 10: the image or the video is resized and repositioned such that an entirety of the image or the video is above the horizontal center of the predetermined area (¶s 50, 51, 76, and 77; where, if an event such as described in ¶ 51 is to be displayed in element 2112 in figure 3, the size of element 2112 would increase while the size of element 2111 would decrease such that the height of element 2111 could easily be made less than half that of the height of element 21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Cope, as modified by Karpinsky, according to the teachings of Ezaki, for the purpose of enabling to a user to more easily see an event notification and respond accordingly (at least suggested by the teaching of changing the size of or enlarging a display region in response to an event such as, for example, “…traffic information reception, emergency alert reception, … approach to an intersection, right/left turn guidance, … approach of an emergency vehicle, sleepiness detection, biological abnormality detection…” in ¶s 50, 51, 76, and 77).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4, and 5 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.
Closing Remarks/Comments
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 NATHAN DANIELSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4248. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at (571) 272-7603. 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.
/NATHAN DANIELSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights