DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Application # 19/239,570 filed on June 16, 2025 in which claims 1-5 were presented for examination.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 are pending, of which claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed June 6, 2025 complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.55.
Title of the Invention
37 C.F.R. § 1.72(a) states: “The title of the invention may not exceed 500 characters in length and must be as short and specific as possible” (emphasis added). Thus, the title of the invention is not sufficiently descriptive.
A new title is required that is more clearly and more specifically indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson, US Publication 2020/0139812 (hereinafter Johnson) in view of Krasadakis et al., US Publication 2017/0289596 (hereinafter Krasadakis).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson discloses an in-vehicle device comprising a controller configured to execute “acquiring an image from an imaging device disposed toward an inside of a vehicle” (Johnson ¶ 30) where the a camera “which captures images … of the vehicle occupants may be provided within the vehicle cabin.” Additionally, Johnson discloses “identifying a current status of a user present in the vehicle by analyzing the acquired image” (Johnson ¶ 44) by detecting the occupants’ seating positions (i.e., current status.). Further, Johnson discloses “determining a display format of information according to the identified current status” (Johnson ¶ 63) by determining an information category of the information, which is a format within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term. Finally, Johnson discloses “displaying the information on a display according to the determined display format” (Johnson ¶ 64) by displaying the information on the appropriate display screen.
Although Johnson discloses the display of information, it does not disclose that the information is a “two-dimensional code” and, therefore, does not appear to explicitly disclose “determining a display format of a two-dimensional code according to the identified current status; and displaying the two-dimensional code on a display according to the determined display format.”
However, Krasadakis discloses that it is well known to “determining a display format of a two-dimensional code according to the identified current status” (Krasadakis ¶¶ 97-99, 104) by updating (i.e., determining a display format) of content based on characteristics (i.e., current status) of users (Krasadakis ¶¶ 97-99) and indicating that the content may be a QR code (i.e., a two-dimensional code, Krasadakis ¶ 104). Additionally, Krasadakis discloses “displaying the two-dimensional code on a display according to the determined display format” (Krasadakis ¶ 103) by displaying the QR code.
Johnson and Krasadakis are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of delivering data based on a user’s location.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Johnson and Krasadakis before him or her to modify the data of Johnson to be the QR code of Krasadakis.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of simple substitution. See KSR Int’l Co v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(B). Johnson differs from the claimed invention by including generic data in place of the claimed two-dimensional code. Further, Krasadakis teaches that displaying two-dimensional codes was well known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have predictably substituted the two-dimensional code of Krasadakis for the data of Johnson because both are merely data to be displayed, the type of which does not affect the structure of the system.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Johnson and Krasadakis discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Johnson and Krasadakis discloses “wherein the current status includes a relative position of the user to the display” (Johnson ¶ 44) where the occupant’s seating position is a relative position because it is the occupant’s position relative to the vehicle. Further, the combination of Johnson and Krasadakis discloses “the display format includes a setting of an output position on the display” (Johnson ¶ 64) where which display to display the information on is an output position on the display. Finally, the combination of Johnson and Krasadakis discloses “the determining the display format includes determining the output position of the two-dimensional code within a user side area according to the relative position” (Johnson ¶ 64) by displaying the information, which when combined with Krasadakis would be the two-dimensional code, on the display nearest the correct user.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Johnson and Krasadakis discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 2 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Johnson and Krasadakis discloses “wherein when there is a plurality of users in the vehicle, the identifying the current status of the user comprises identifying the current status of a user holding a reading device of the two-dimensional code among the plurality of users” (Krasadakis ¶ 22) by tracking the location (i.e., status) of the user’s mobile device (i.e., a reading device of the two-dimensional code).
Regarding claim 5, it merely recites a non-transitory storage medium for performing the method of claim 1. The non-transitory storage medium comprises computer software modules for performing the various functions. The combination of Johnson and Krasadakis comprises computer software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 5 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Krasadakis, as applied to claim3 above, and in further view of Fefferman, US Publication 2016/0328590 (hereinafter Fefferman).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Johnson and Krasadakis discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 3 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Johnson and Krasadakis does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the current status includes whether or not the user is pointing the reading device toward the display, the display format includes setting a size of the two-dimensional code; determining the display format includes determining to increase the size of the two-dimensional code when the user is pointing the reading device toward the display.”
However, Fefferman discloses a method for displaying a two-dimension code based on a current status, “wherein the current status includes whether or not the user is pointing the reading device toward the display” (Fefferman ¶ 56) by detecting a possible code scan (i.e., that the user is pointing the reading device toward the display). Additionally, Fefferman discloses “ the display format includes setting a size of the two-dimensional code; determining the display format includes determining to increase the size of the two-dimensional code when the user is pointing the reading device toward the display” (Fefferman ¶ 59) by adjusting the size of the on-screen code.
Johnson, Krasadakis, and Fefferman are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of displaying personalized data.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Johnson, Krasadakis, and Fefferman before him or her to modify the two-dimensional code display of Johnson and Krasadakis to include the code stabilization method of Fefferman.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the user to advantageously scan the code faster. (Fefferman ¶ 24).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Tamayama, US Publication 2006/0071076, System and method for displaying a two-dimensional code at a particular location of a display screen.
Miller et al., US Publication 2023/0278425, System and method for generating a dynamic user interface in a vehicle based on a user’s position.
Kubo et al., US Publication 2023/0376921, System and method for displaying a two-dimensional code on a particular display of a vehicle.
Abbas et al., US Publication 2025/0298568, System and method for generating a dynamic user interface in a vehicle based on a user’s position.
Cui et al., US Publication 2026/0134241, System and method for placing a two-dimensional code in a location based on a user’s position.
Minnick et al., US Patent 8,430,302, System and method for presenting a two-dimensional code at a location based on a user’s presence.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights