DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-20 as originally filed are pending and have been considered as follows.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(p)(1) because: the reference characters in Figures 1 and 3-12 are not oriented in the same direction as the view as per the orientation of the Figure numbers.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “A” and “B” in Fig. 4.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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:
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;
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
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.
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 1-2 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kneib (DE 102022207077A1; see attached English machine translation).
As per Claim 1, Kneib discloses a control device (1) (Figs. 1-2; ¶28-30) comprising:
a display device (10) (Figs. 1-2; ¶28-30); and
an interior panel (20) operatively linked to the display device (10), the interior panel (20) including a touch-sensitive surface (as per 21.1-21.7) on one surface thereof (Figs. 1-2; ¶28-30),
wherein a control mode (as per “standard operating mode” of Fig. 3; as per “dialog operating mode” of Fig. 4) of the interior panel (20) is changeable by operating (as per user interaction with dialog box 11 in Fig. 4) the display device (10) (Figs. 3-4; ¶31-33),
wherein the touch-sensitive surface (21.1-21.7) is configured to be illuminated (as per “each marked with a light symbol 22.1-22.7” in ¶31; as per “In the dialog mode, the illuminated symbols … go out. Instead of the illuminated symbols, the left function keys 21.1-21.3 are illuminated in a solid green color, while the right function keys 21.5-21.7 are marked with a bright red color” in ¶32) in response to a user touch (as per “it is possible to switch from the dialog operating mode to the standard operating mode as soon as the middle function key is pressed” in ¶11) (Figs. 3-4; ¶11, 31-33), and
wherein a function (as per “specific menus” in ¶31, as per “left function keys 21.1-21.3 are assigned to capture user input for “Yes” and “right function keys 21.5-21.7 can be used to record user input for “No” in ¶32) associated with the control mode (as per “standard operating mode” of Fig. 3; as per “dialog operating mode” of Fig. 4) is controllable based on a user input provided to the touch-sensitive surface (as per 21.1-21.7) (Figs. 3-4; ¶31-33).
As per Claim 2, Kneib discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Kneib further discloses wherein the touch-sensitive surface (21.1-21.7) is partitioned into a plurality of cells (as per structure of each key 21.1-21.7) and is configured to be illuminable on a per-cell basis (as per “each function key 21.1-21.7 … is assigned a first led E1-E7, a second LED C1-C7 and a third LED S1-S7” in ¶41) (Figs. 3-7; ¶31-44).
As per Claim 11, Kneib discloses a method of controlling vehicle functions using a control device (1) including a display device (10) operatively linked to an interior panel (20) having a touch-sensitive surface (as per 21.1-21.7) (Figs. 1-2; ¶28-30), the method comprising:
changing a control mode (as per “standard operating mode” of Fig. 3; as per “dialog operating mode” of Fig. 4) of the interior panel (20) by operating (as per user interaction with dialog box 11 in Fig. 4) the display device (10) (Figs. 3-4; ¶31-33);
illuminating (as per “each marked with a light symbol 22.1-22.7” in ¶31; as per “In the dialog mode, the illuminated symbols … go out. Instead of the illuminated symbols, the left function keys 21.1-21.3 are illuminated in a solid green color, while the right function keys 21.5-21.7 are marked with a bright red color” in ¶32) at least a portion of the touch-sensitive surface (21.1-21.7) in response to detecting a user touch (as per “it is possible to switch from the dialog operating mode to the standard operating mode as soon as the middle function key is pressed” in ¶11) on the touch-sensitive surface (21.1-21.7) (Figs. 3-4; ¶11, 31-33); and
controlling a function (as per “specific menus” in ¶31, as per “left function keys 21.1-21.3 are assigned to capture user input for “Yes” and “right function keys 21.5-21.7 can be used to record user input for “No” in ¶32) associated with the control mode (as per “standard operating mode” of Fig. 3; as per “dialog operating mode” of Fig. 4) based on a user input provided to the touch-sensitive surface (as per 21.1-21.7) (Figs. 3-4; ¶31-33).
As per Claim 12, Kneib discloses all limitations of Claim 11. Kneib further discloses wherein the touch-sensitive surface (21.1-21.7) is partitioned into a plurality of cells (as per structure of each key 21.1-21.7), and wherein the illuminating (as per “each marked with a light symbol 22.1-22.7” in ¶31; as per “In the dialog mode, the illuminated symbols … go out. Instead of the illuminated symbols, the left function keys 21.1-21.3 are illuminated in a solid green color, while the right function keys 21.5-21.7 are marked with a bright red color” in ¶32) of at least the portion of the touch-sensitive surface (21.1-21.7) comprises illuminating the touch-sensitive surface on a per-cell basis (as per “each function key 21.1-21.7 … is assigned a first led E1-E7, a second LED C1-C7 and a third LED S1-S7” in ¶41) in response to the user touch (as per “it is possible to switch from the dialog operating mode to the standard operating mode as soon as the middle function key is pressed” in ¶11) (Figs. 3-7; ¶31-44).
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.
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 3-6 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kneib (DE 102022207077A1; see attached English machine translation) in view of Iino (US Pub. No. 2017/0220114).
As per Claim 3, Kneib discloses all limitations of Claim 2. Kneib does not expressly disclose wherein the function is controlled based on a number of cells touched by the user when the user performs a drag input on the touch-sensitive surface.
Iino discloses an input device (1) connected to an on-vehicle apparatus (50) that includes a display (55) (Fig. 1A; ¶21-24). Input device (1) includes an operation surface (P) that detects touch positions (C1, C2, C3) for controlling a display image in display (55) (Figs. 1A-1B, 3A-3B; ¶21-24, 32-35, 57-59). An operation unit (5) detects a touch position (C) on operation surface (P), outputs the coordinates (e.g., X1, Y1) of touch positions (e.g., C1) as well as movements between coordinates (e.g., C1 to C3) to a control unit (10) that includes a movement state calculation unit (12) that calculates states of movement of the touch position (C) in a direction of the X-axis and a direction of the Y-axis on the operation surface (P) (Fig. 2; ¶45-47, 51-53). Control unit (10) recognizes a specified gesture from the input movements (e.g., C1 to C3) in view of gesture information (22) stored in memory (20) (Figs. 2, 4; ¶99-107). In this way, a target device may be provided with an appropriate function in view of user input corresponding to the gesture as input into operation surface (P) (Figs. 2, 4; ¶99-107). Operation surface (P) is arranged near an armrest (R) such that the user can readily operate input device (1) without changing driving posture (¶22). Like Kneib, Iino is concerned with user input devices.
Therefore, from these teachings of Kneib and Iino, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Iino to the system of Kneib since doing so would enhance the system by facilitating user input without changing driving posture. Applying the teachings of Iino to the system of Kneib would result in a system that operates “wherein the function is controlled based on a number of cells touched by the user when the user performs a drag input on the touch-sensitive surface” in that the system of Kneib would be adapted to calculate movement states of user inputs in order to detect gestures as per Iino.
As per Claim 4, Kneib discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Kneib further discloses wherein the function keys (21.1-21.7) includes a key (22.5) corresponding to vehicle fan systems (Fig. 3). Kneib does not expressly disclose wherein the display device is configured to display a first interface for controlling an air volume and a wind direction of an air vent when a first control mode is implemented.
See rejection of Claim 3 for discussion of teachings of Iino. Iino further discloses wherein the target device includes an air conditioner and specified functions according to specified gestures (as per Fig. 5B; ¶116-123) involve wind direction adjustment as well as air volume adjustment (Fig. 4; ¶99-107) according to a specified display (Fig. 5A; ¶110-113).
Therefore, from these teachings of Kneib and Iino, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Iino to the system of Kneib since doing so would enhance the system by facilitating user input without changing driving posture. Applying the teachings of Iino to the system of Kneib would result in a system that operates “wherein the display device is configured to display a first interface for controlling an air volume and a wind direction of an air vent when a first control mode is implemented” in that the system of Kneib would be adapted to calculate movement states of user inputs in order to detect gestures for appropriate air conditioner function and display as per Iino.
As per Claim 5, the combination of Kneib and Iino teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 4. Kneib does not expressly disclose wherein an image of the air vent is displayed on the first interface, and wherein a determination is made as to whether the air vent is to be operated in response to a first user input provided on the touch-sensitive surface.
See rejection of Claim 4 for discussion of teachings of Iino. Iino further discloses wherein the display corresponding to air conditioner functionality includes an image of the air vent (as per W1-W4 in Fig. 5A; ¶112-113).
Therefore, from these teachings of Kneib and Iino, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Iino to the system of Kneib since doing so would enhance the system by facilitating user input without changing driving posture. Applying the teachings of Iino to the system of Kneib would result in a system that operates “wherein an image of the air vent is displayed on the first interface, and wherein a determination is made as to whether the air vent is to be operated in response to a first user input provided on the touch-sensitive surface” in that the system of Kneib would be adapted to calculate movement states of user inputs in order to detect gestures for appropriate air conditioner function and display as per Iino.
As per Claim 6, the combination of Kneib and Iino teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 5. Kneib does not expressly disclose wherein the air volume and the wind direction of the air vent are adjusted based on a second user input, and wherein adjustments to the air volume and the wind direction are proportional to a size of a touch area associated with the second input.
See rejection of Claim 4 for discussion of teachings of Iino.
Therefore, from these teachings of Kneib and Iino, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Iino to the system of Kneib since doing so would enhance the system by facilitating user input without changing driving posture. Applying the teachings of Iino to the system of Kneib would result in a system that operates “wherein the air volume and the wind direction of the air vent are adjusted based on a second user input, and wherein adjustments to the air volume and the wind direction are proportional to a size of a touch area associated with the second input” in that the system of Kneib would be adapted to calculate movement states of user inputs to detect gestures for appropriate air conditioner function and display as per Iino.
As per Claim 13, Kneib discloses all limitations of Claim 12. Kneib does not expressly disclose wherein controlling the function comprises adjusting the function based on a number of the cells touched by the user during a drag input on the touch-sensitive surface.
See rejection of Claim 3 for discussion of teachings of Iino.
Therefore, from these teachings of Kneib and Iino, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Iino to the system of Kneib since doing so would enhance the system by facilitating user input without changing driving posture. Applying the teachings of Iino to the system of Kneib would result in a system that operates “wherein controlling the function comprises adjusting the function based on a number of the cells touched by the user during a drag input on the touch-sensitive surface” in that the system of Kneib would be adapted to calculate movement states of user inputs in order to detect gestures as per Iino.
As per Claim 14, Kneib discloses all limitations of Claim 11. Kneib further discloses wherein the function keys (21.1-21.7) includes a key (22.5) corresponding to vehicle fan systems (Fig. 3). Kneib does not expressly disclose displaying, on the display device, a first interface for controlling an air volume and a wind direction of a vehicle air vent when a first control mode is selected.
See rejection of Claim 13 for discussion of teachings of Iino. Iino further discloses wherein the target device includes an air conditioner and specified functions according to specified gestures (as per Fig. 5B; ¶116-123) involve wind direction adjustment as well as air volume adjustment (Fig. 4; ¶99-107) according to a specified display (Fig. 5A; ¶110-113).
Therefore, from these teachings of Kneib and Iino, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Iino to the system of Kneib since doing so would enhance the system by facilitating user input without changing driving posture. Applying the teachings of Iino to the system of Kneib would result in a system that operates by “displaying, on the display device, a first interface for controlling an air volume and a wind direction of a vehicle air vent when a first control mode is selected” in that the system of Kneib would be adapted to calculate movement states of user inputs in order to detect gestures for appropriate air conditioner function and display as per Iino.
As per Claim 15, the combination of Kneib and Iino teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 14. Kneib does not expressly disclose displaying an image of the air vent on the first interface; and determining an operational state of the air vent based on a first user input detected on the touch-sensitive surface.
See rejection of Claim 14 for discussion of teachings of Iino. Iino further discloses wherein the display corresponding to air conditioner functionality includes an image of the air vent (as per W1-W4 in Fig. 5A; ¶112-113).
Therefore, from these teachings of Kneib and Iino, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Iino to the system of Kneib since doing so would enhance the system by facilitating user input without changing driving posture. Applying the teachings of Iino to the system of Kneib would result in a system that operates by “displaying an image of the air vent on the first interface; and determining an operational state of the air vent based on a first user input detected on the touch-sensitive surface” in that the system of Kneib would be adapted to calculate movement states of user inputs in order to detect gestures for appropriate air conditioner function and display as per Iino.
As per Claim 16, the combination of Kneib and Iino teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 15. Kneib does not expressly disclose adjusting the air volume and the wind direction of the air vent based on a second user input, wherein the adjustments are proportional to a size of a touch area associated with the second user input.
See rejection of Claim 14 for discussion of teachings of Iino.
Therefore, from these teachings of Kneib and Iino, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Iino to the system of Kneib since doing so would enhance the system by facilitating user input without changing driving posture. Applying the teachings of Iino to the system of Kneib would result in a system that operates by “adjusting the air volume and the wind direction of the air vent based on a second user input, wherein the adjustments are proportional to a size of a touch area associated with the second user input” in that the system of Kneib would be adapted to calculate movement states of user inputs in order to detect gestures for appropriate air conditioner function and display as per Iino.
Claims 7-9 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kneib (DE 102022207077A1; see attached English machine translation) in view of Park (US Pub. No. 2014/0331153).
As per Claim 7, Kneib discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Kneib further discloses wherein the function keys (21.1-21-7) are used to call up specific menus of a graphical user interface (GUI) that are to be displayed on the screen (10) (¶31). Kneib further discloses wherein the display device (10) is configured to display a second interface (as per display in “standard operating mode” of Fig. 3 or “dialog operating mode” of Fig. 4). Kneib does not expressly wherein the second interface is for controlling brightness and color of a lighting device when a second control mode is implemented.
Park discloses an electronic device (100) that includes a display device (110) and input/output module (200) (Figs. 1a-c; ¶68-73). In operation, when a user touches input/output module (200) the display device (110) displays a menu screen (Fig. 43a, 44; ¶265-266). When a user touches the clear area of the input/output module (200), the display device (100) stops displaying the menu screen (Fig. 43b, 44; ¶265, 266). In one embodiment, the input/output module (200) is used to set a color and brightness value of the display device (100) using an appropriate menu screen (100-A) displayed within the display device (110) (Figs. 45-46; ¶272-278). In this way, the user can easily control the operating state of the electronic device (¶4). Like Kneib, Park is concerned with display control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Kneib and Park, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Park to the system of Kneib since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system for controlling the operating state of the electronic device. Applying the teachings of Park to the system of Kneib would result in a system that operates “wherein the second interface is for controlling brightness and color of a lighting device when a second control mode is implemented” in that the system of Kneib would be adapted to include brightness and color control functionality as per Park.
As per Claim 8, the combination of Kneib and Park teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 7. Kneib does not expressly disclose wherein an image of the lighting device is displayed on the second interface, and wherein an operating mode of the lighting device is determined based on a first user input provided on the touch-sensitive surface.
See rejection of Claim 7 for discussion of teachings of Park. Park further discloses wherein the display screen for adjusting brightness includes an appropriate image (as per Icon above BRIGHTNESS in Figs. 45-46).
Therefore, from these teachings of Kneib and Park, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Park to the system of Kneib since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system for controlling the operating state of the electronic device. Applying the teachings of Park to the system of Kneib would result in a system that operates “wherein an image of the lighting device is displayed on the second interface, and wherein an operating mode of the lighting device is determined based on a first user input provided on the touch-sensitive surface” in that the system of Kneib would be adapted to include brightness and color control functionality as per Park.
As per Claim 9, the combination of Kneib and Park teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 8. Kneib does not expressly disclose wherein the brightness and the color of the lighting device are adjusted based on a second user input, and wherein adjustments to the brightness and the color are proportional to a size of a touch area associated with the second input.
See rejection of Claim 7 for discussion of teachings of Park. Park further discloses wherein brightness corresponds to the user’s touch on the input/output module (200) (Figs. 45-46; ¶273-278).
Therefore, from these teachings of Kneib and Park, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Park to the system of Kneib since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system for controlling the operating state of the electronic device. Applying the teachings of Park to the system of Kneib would result in a system that operates “wherein the brightness and the color of the lighting device are adjusted based on a second user input, and wherein adjustments to the brightness and the color are proportional to a size of a touch area associated with the second input” in that the system of Kneib would be adapted to include brightness and color control functionality as per Park.
As per Claim 17, Kneib discloses all limitations of Claim 11. Kneib further discloses wherein the function keys (21.1-21-7) are used to call up specific menus of a graphical user interface (GUI) that are to be displayed on the screen (10) (¶31). Kneib further discloses wherein the display device (10) is configured to display a second interface (as per display in “standard operating mode” of Fig. 3 or “dialog operating mode” of Fig. 4). Kneib does not expressly disclose wherein the second interface is for controlling a brightness and a color of a vehicle lighting device when a second control mode is selected.
See rejection of Claim 7 for discussion of teachings of Park.
Therefore, from these teachings of Kneib and Park, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Park to the system of Kneib since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system for controlling the operating state of the electronic device. Applying the teachings of Park to the system of Kneib would result in a system that operates “wherein the second interface is for controlling a brightness and a color of a vehicle lighting device when a second control mode is selected” in that the system of Kneib would be adapted to include brightness and color control functionality as per Park.
As per Claim 18, the combination of Kneib and Park teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 17. Kneib does not expressly disclose displaying an image of the lighting device on the second interface; and determining an operational state of the lighting device based on a first user input detected on the touch-sensitive surface.
See rejection of Claim 17 for discussion of teachings of Park. Park further discloses wherein the display screen for adjusting brightness includes an appropriate image (as per Icon above BRIGHTNESS in Figs. 45-46).
Therefore, from these teachings of Kneib and Park, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Park to the system of Kneib since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system for controlling the operating state of the electronic device. Applying the teachings of Park to the system of Kneib would result in a system that operates by “displaying an image of the lighting device on the second interface; and determining an operational state of the lighting device based on a first user input detected on the touch-sensitive surface” in that the system of Kneib would be adapted to include brightness and color control functionality as per Park.
As per Claim 19, the combination of Kneib and Park teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 18. Kneib does not expressly disclose adjusting the brightness and the color of the lighting device based on a second user input, wherein the adjustments are proportional to a size of a touch area associated with the second user input.
See rejection of Claim 7 for discussion of teachings of Park. Park further discloses wherein brightness corresponds to the user’s touch on the input/output module (200) (Figs. 45-46; ¶273-278).
Therefore, from these teachings of Kneib and Park, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Park to the system of Kneib since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system for controlling the operating state of the electronic device. Applying the teachings of Park to the system of Kneib would result in a system that operates by “adjusting the brightness and the color of the lighting device based on a second user input, wherein the adjustments are proportional to a size of a touch area associated with the second user input” in that the system of Kneib would be adapted to include brightness and color control functionality as per Park.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kneib (DE 102022207077A1; see attached English machine translation) in view of Gu (CN 114299648 A; see attached English machine translation).
As per Claim 10, Kneib discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Kneib does not expressly disclose wherein the interior panel is operatively linked to a glove box when a third control mode is implemented, and wherein the glove box is opened or closed in response to an user input provided to the touch-sensitive surface.
Gu discloses a glove box control system that includes a target terminal (110), a display screen (140) and a body control unit (150) (Fig. 1; ¶27). Target terminal (110) is connected to a vehicle network and is used to receive a first password cancellation request for canceling the glovebox password input by the target user (¶28). Display screen (140) is used to receive the first password cancellation request and send the first password cancellation request to the vehicle body control unit (150) (¶28). Vehicle control unit (150) cancels the glove box password based on the first password cancellation request (¶28). In this way, the glove box (160) can be remotely unlocked and opened via the target terminal (110) (Fig. 2; ¶29, 56, 58). In one embodiment, activation of glove box (160) is associated with a glove box display screen (¶60) and password information is also displayed (¶65-66, 108). In this way, a convenient anti-theft function for glove box (106) is provided (¶2-3). Like Kneib, Gu is concerned with vehicle control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Kneib and Gu, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Gu to the system of Kneib since doing so would enhance the system by providing a convenient anti-theft function for vehicle glove boxes. Applying the teachings of Gu to the system of Kneib would result in a system that operates “wherein the interior panel is operatively linked to a glove box when a third control mode is implemented, and wherein the glove box is opened or closed in response to an user input provided to the touch-sensitive surface” in that the system of Kneib would be adapted to include anti-theft glovebox functionality as per Gu.
As per Claim 20, Kneib discloses all limitations of Claim 11. Kneib does not expressly disclose: operatively linking the interior panel to a vehicle glove box when a third control mode is selected; and opening or closing the glove box in response to a user input detected on the touch-sensitive surface.
See rejection of Claim 10 for discussion of teachings of Gu.
Therefore, from these teachings of Kneib and Gu, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Gu to the system of Kneib since doing so would enhance the system by providing a convenient anti-theft function for vehicle glove boxes. Applying the teachings of Gu to the system of Kneib would result in a system that operates by “operatively linking the interior panel to a vehicle glove box when a third control mode is selected; and opening or closing the glove box in response to a user input detected on the touch-sensitive surface.” in that the system of Kneib would be adapted to include anti-theft glovebox functionality as per Gu.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kennedy (US Pub. No. 2005/0116818), Bayley (US Pub. No. 2009/0065336), Feit (US Pub. No. 2017/0371515), Wild (US Pub. No. 2018/0267637), Shin (US Pub. No. 2020/0218442), and Balain (US Pub. No. 2020/0307379) disclose vehicle display control systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 4:30pm.
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, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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 HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
