DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
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.
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: (1) a determination module configured to determine whether the first finger that is operating the touch panel is a thumb; and (2) an output module configured to output a message that encourages operation on the touch panel with the thumb in response to the determination module determining that the first finger is not the thumb in claims 6 and 13 (enumeration and emphasis added).
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.
Examiner notes the determination module appears to include at least a camera and a touch sensor based at least on paragraphs [0016] and [0017] of the specification as filed. Examiner further notes the output module appears to include at least a speaker and a display based at least on paragraph [0073] of the specification as filed.
In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner notes the terms "first display module" and “second display module” do not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because structure, in the form of a display, is recited to perform the function.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al. (USPN 2021/0107358) in view of Helot (USPN 2019/0337388) and further in view of Nakamura et al. (USPN 2015/0370403).
With respect to claim 1, Shibata teaches a vehicle (Figs. 1-3) comprising:
a first display module arranged in front of a steering wheel (Figs. 1-3, item 24 and at least paragraph [0031] teach a center display);
a second display module arranged on a vehicle rear side of the first display module on at least one side of the first display module in a vehicle width direction (Figs. 1-3, items 26 and 28 and at least paragraph [0035] teach right and left side display units).
However, Shibata fails to expressly teach a second display module arranged on a vehicle rear side of the first display module on at least one side of the first display module in a vehicle width direction and including a touch panel; and
a guide portion provided on a rear surface of the second display module and configured to determine positions of one or more second fingers that are fingers other than a first finger that operates the touch panel and to be placed on the rear surface of the second display module (emphasis added).
Helot teaches a known technique using touch panels as display modules next to the steering wheel of a vehicle (Figs. 1-10, items 10 and at least paragraphs [0041]-[0047]).
Shibata teaches a base process/product of a second display module arranged on a vehicle rear side of the first display module on at least one side of the first display module in a vehicle width direction which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that the second display module includes a touch panel. Helot teaches a known technique of using touch panels as display modules around the steering wheel of a vehicle that is comparable to the base process/product.
Helot’s known technique of using touch panels as display modules around the steering wheel of a vehicle would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Shibata and the results would have been predictable and resulted in modifying the second display module of Shibata to include a touch panel such that the vehicle comprises a second display module arranged on a vehicle rear side of the first display module on at least one side of the first display module in a vehicle width direction and including a touch panel which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Shibata in view of Helot teaches a vehicle with a second display module including a touch panel.
However, Shibata in view of Helot fails to expressly teach a guide portion provided on a rear surface of the second display module and configured to determine positions of one or more second fingers that are fingers other than a first finger that operates the touch panel and to be placed on the rear surface of the second display module (emphasis added).
Nakamura teaches a known technique providing a guide portion on a rear surface of a touch panel and determining positions of one or more fingers on the rear surface (Figs. 1-11). Specifically, Nakamura teaches a guide portion provided on a rear surface of a touch panel and configured to determine positions of one or more second fingers that are fingers other than a first finger that operates the touch panel and to be placed on the rear surface of the second display module (Figs. 1-11. At least Figs. 3 and 4 and paragraphs [0047]-[0049] teach a groove and recessed part are used to guide and detect fingers placed on the rear of a touch panel while a thumb operates the front of the touch panel).
Shibata in view of Helot teaches a base process/product of a vehicle with a second display module including a touch panel which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that a guide portion is provided on a rear surface of the second display module and configured to determine positions of one or more second fingers that are fingers other than a first finger that operates the touch panel and to be placed on the rear surface of the second display module. Nakamura teaches a known technique of providing a guide portion on a rear surface of a touch panel and determining positions of one or more fingers on the rear surface that is comparable to the base process/product.
Nakamura’s known technique of providing a guide portion on a rear surface of a touch panel and determining positions of one or more fingers on the rear surface would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Shibata in view of Helot and the results would have been predictable and resulted in modifying the second display module of Shibata in view of Helot to include a guide portion provided on a rear surface of the second display module and configured to determine positions of one or more second fingers that are fingers other than a first finger that operates the touch panel and to be placed on the rear surface of the second display module which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 2, Shibata in view of Helot and further in view of Nakamura teach the vehicle according to claim 1, discussed above, wherein the guide portion includes a dent provided on the rear surface of the second display module (Nakamura, Fig. 4, items 33B and paragraph [0048] teach a dent/recessed part. Examiner notes the term “dent” is subject to a reasonably broad interpretation and includes the recessed part taught by Nakamura).
With respect to claim 4, Shibata in view of Helot and further in view of Nakamura teach the vehicle according to claim 1, discussed above, wherein the guide portion includes two or more grooves provided on the rear surface of the second display module and extending in the vehicle width direction (Nakamura, Fig. 3, items 32A-32D and 33A-33D and paragraph [0049] teach multiple circular grooves on the rear surface that extend in all directions. Examiner notes the term “groove” is subject to a reasonably broad interpretation and includes the recessed part as taught by Nakamura).
With respect to claim 5, Shibata in view of Helot and further in view of Nakamura teach the vehicle according to claim 1, discussed above, wherein the guide portion is formed to continuously or intermittently extend in a vertical direction of the vehicle (Nakamura, Fig. 3, items 32A-32D and 33A-33D and paragraph [0049] teach multiple grooves/guide portions extend in a vertical direction.).
With respect to claim 7, Shibata in view of Helot and further in view of Nakamura teach the vehicle according to claim 1, discussed above.
However, Shibata in view of Helot and further in view of Nakamura fail to expressly teach wherein the second display module is configured to display a GUI component for operating game content displayed at the first display module.
Examiner takes Official Notice that the usage of a touch panel to display a GUI component for operating game content on a different display is well known in the art. Examiner notes a common example of this includes the Nintendo DS, a handheld gaming device with a top display and a bottom touch panel with GUI components for operating the game content displayed on the top display.
Shibata in view of Helot and further in view of Nakamura teaches a base process/product of a first display module and a second display module which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that the second display module is configured to display a GUI component for operating game content displayed at the first display module. Official Notice teaches a known technique of using a touch panel to display a GUI component for operating game content on a different display is well known in the art that is comparable to the base process/product.
Official Notice’s known technique of using a touch panel to display a GUI component for operating game content on a different display would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Shibata in view of Helot and further in view of Nakamura and the results would have been predictable and resulted in modifying the second display module with a touch panel of Shibata in view of Helot and further in view of Nakamura such that the second display module is configured to display a GUI component for operating game content displayed at the first display module which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 8, a display device mounted on a vehicle, corresponds to and is analyzed and rejected for substantially the same reasons as the vehicle of Claim 1, discussed above.
The further limitations of claims 9 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2, discussed above.
The further limitations of claims 11-12 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claims 4-5, discussed above.
The further limitations of claim 14 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claims 7, discussed above.
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al. (USPN 2021/0107358) in view of Helot (USPN 2019/0337388) in view of Nakamura et al. (USPN 2015/0370403) in view of Letourneur (USPN 9,389,718) and further in view of Tanabe et al. (USPN 2018/0007192).
With respect to claim 6, Shibata in view of Helot and further in view of Nakamura teach the vehicle according to claim 1, discussed above, further comprising:
a determination module (Helot, Figs. 1-10, items 10 and paragraphs [0041]-[0047] teach touch sensors); and
an output module (Shibata, Figs. 1-3, items 24, 26 and 28; and Helot, Figs. 1-10, items 10 and paragraphs [0041]-[0047] teach displays).
However, Shibata in view of Helot and further in view of Nakamura fail to expressly teach a determination module configured to determine whether the first finger that is operating the touch panel is a thumb; and
an output module configured to output a message that encourages operation on the touch panel with the thumb in response to the determination module determining that the first finger is not the thumb (emphasis added).
Letourneur teaches a known technique determining whether a finger operating a touch panel is a thumb (Figs. 1-13 and Col. 7, lines 13-34).
Shibata in view of Helot and further in view of Nakamura teaches a base process/product of a vehicle including first and second display modules including a determination module and an output module which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that the determination module is configured to determine whether the first finger that is operating the touch panel is a thumb; and the output module is configured to output a message that encourages operation on the touch panel with the thumb in response to the determination module determining that the first finger is not the thumb. Letourneur teaches a known technique of determining whether a finger operating a touch panel is a thumb that is comparable to the base process/product.
Letourneur’s known technique of determining whether a finger operating a touch panel is a thumb would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Shibata in view of Helot and further in view of Nakamura and the results would have been predictable and resulted in a determination module configured to determine whether the first finger that is operating the touch panel is a thumb which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Shibata in view of Helot in view of Nakamura and further in view of Letourneur teach a vehicle including first and second display modules including a determination module configured to determine whether the first finger that is operating the touch panel is a thumb and an output module.
However, Shibata in view of Helot in view of Nakamura and further in view of Letourneur fail to expressly teach an output module configured to output a message that encourages operation on the touch panel with the thumb in response to the determination module determining that the first finger is not the thumb (emphasis added).
Tanabe teaches a known technique presenting information to a display that a finger other than a thumb has been detected (Figs. 1-9. At least Figs. 6-9 and paragraphs [0078]-[0083]. Examiner notes the claim does not require any specific message or encouragement and a reasonably broad interpretation includes the teachings of Tanabe).
Shibata in view of Helot in view of Nakamura and further in view of Letourneur teaches a base process/product of a vehicle including first and second display modules including a determination module configured to determine whether the first finger that is operating the touch panel is a thumb and an output module which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that the output module is configured to output a message that encourages operation on the touch panel with the thumb in response to the determination module determining that the first finger is not the thumb. Tanabe teaches a known technique of presenting information to a display that a finger other than a thumb has been detected that is comparable to the base process/product.
Tanabe’s known technique of presenting information to a display that a finger other than a thumb has been detected would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Shibata in view of Helot in view of Nakamura and further in view of Letourneur and the results would have been predictable and resulted in a determination module configured to determine whether the first finger that is operating the touch panel is a thumb; and an output module configured to output a message that encourages operation on the touch panel with the thumb in response to the determination module determining that the first finger is not the thumb which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The further limitations of claim 13 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 6, discussed above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 7-12 and 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of copending Application No. 19/397,484 in view of Helot (USPN 2019/0337388) and further in view of Nakamura et al. (USPN 2015/0370403).
Instant Application 19/415,226
Copending Application No. 19/397,484
1. A vehicle comprising: a first display module arranged in front of a steering wheel; a second display module arranged on a vehicle rear side of the first display module on at least one side of the first display module in a vehicle width direction and including a touch panel; and a guide portion provided on a rear surface of the second display module and configured to determine positions of one or more second fingers that are fingers other than a first finger that operates the touch panel and to be placed on the rear surface of the second display module.
1. An in-vehicle system comprising a display device and an information processing apparatus configured to output information via the display device, the display device comprising: a touch panel; a first display unit disposed in front of a steering wheel; a second display unit disposed on at least one side in a vehicle width direction with respect to the first display unit, the second display unit being also disposed on a rear side of a vehicle with respect to the first display unit; and a third display unit connecting the first display unit and the second display unit to each other and having a curved surface; the information processing apparatus comprising a controller and a storage, the controller being configured to execute: determining, according to information stored in the storage, whether or not a plurality of pages are present on a screen displayed on the second display unit; generating a command to display a screen indicating the presence of the plurality of pages on the third display unit in response to determining that the plurality of pages are present on the screen displayed on the second display unit; and outputting the command thus generated to the display device.
Copending Application No. 19/397,484 teaches a vehicle including first and second display modules. However, Copending Application No. 19/397,484 fails to expressly teach a second display module arranged on a vehicle rear side of the first display module on at least one side of the first display module in a vehicle width direction and including a touch panel; and
a guide portion provided on a rear surface of the second display module and configured to determine positions of one or more second fingers that are fingers other than a first finger that operates the touch panel and to be placed on the rear surface of the second display module (emphasis added).
Helot teaches a known technique using touch panels as display modules next to the steering wheel of a vehicle (Figs. 1-10, items 10 and at least paragraphs [0041]-[0047]).
Copending Application No. 19/397,484 teaches a base process/product of a second display module arranged on a vehicle rear side of the first display module on at least one side of the first display module in a vehicle width direction which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that the second display module includes a touch panel. Helot teaches a known technique of using touch panels as display modules around the steering wheel of a vehicle that is comparable to the base process/product.
Helot’s known technique of using touch panels as display modules around the steering wheel of a vehicle would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Copending Application No. 19/397,484 and the results would have been predictable and resulted in modifying the second display module of Shibata to include a touch panel such that the vehicle comprises a second display module arranged on a vehicle rear side of the first display module on at least one side of the first display module in a vehicle width direction and including a touch panel which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Copending Application No. 19/397,484 in view of Helot teaches a vehicle with a second display module including a touch panel.
However, Copending Application No. 19/397,484 in view of Helot fails to expressly teach a guide portion provided on a rear surface of the second display module and configured to determine positions of one or more second fingers that are fingers other than a first finger that operates the touch panel and to be placed on the rear surface of the second display module (emphasis added).
Nakamura teaches a known technique providing a guide portion on a rear surface of a touch panel and determining positions of one or more fingers on the rear surface (Figs. 1-11). Specifically, Nakamura teaches a guide portion provided on a rear surface of a touch panel and configured to determine positions of one or more second fingers that are fingers other than a first finger that operates the touch panel and to be placed on the rear surface of the second display module (Figs. 1-11. At least Figs. 3 and 4 and paragraphs [0047]-[0049] teach a groove and recessed part are used to guide and detect fingers placed on the rear of a touch panel while a thumb operates the front of the touch panel).
Copending Application No. 19/397,484 in view of Helot teaches a base process/product of a vehicle with a second display module including a touch panel which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that a guide portion is provided on a rear surface of the second display module and configured to determine positions of one or more second fingers that are fingers other than a first finger that operates the touch panel and to be placed on the rear surface of the second display module. Nakamura teaches a known technique of providing a guide portion on a rear surface of a touch panel and determining positions of one or more fingers on the rear surface that is comparable to the base process/product.
Nakamura’s known technique of providing a guide portion on a rear surface of a touch panel and determining positions of one or more fingers on the rear surface would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Copending Application No. 19/397,484 in view of Helot and the results would have been predictable and resulted in modifying the second display module of Shibata in view of Helot to include a guide portion provided on a rear surface of the second display module and configured to determine positions of one or more second fingers that are fingers other than a first finger that operates the touch panel and to be placed on the rear surface of the second display module which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 6 and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of copending Application No. 19/397,484 in view of Helot (USPN 2019/0337388) in view of Nakamura et al. (USPN 2015/0370403) in view of Letourneur (USPN 9,389,718) and further in view of Tanabe et al. (USPN 2018/0007192).
The further limitations of claims 6 and 13 are rejected for substantially the same reasons discussed above.
Examiner notes the following co-pending applications all include a vehicle with first and second display modules and are all provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable for substantially the same reasons as discussed above with respect to copending Application No. 19/397,484:
19/441,728
19/411,849
19/406,607
19/395,609
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record teaches a wall surface in a dent (see at least Figs. 3 and 4 of Nakamura et al. USPN 2015/0370403).
However, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest Applicant’s specifically claimed
“vehicle according to claim 2, wherein a predetermined wall surface in the dent is formed with an inclined surface that bends such that an inclination angle becomes larger stepwise toward a bottom surface of the dent” (claim 3 – emphasis added); and .
“display device according to claim 9, wherein a predetermined wall surface in the dent is formed with an inclined surface that bends such that an inclination angle becomes larger stepwise toward a bottom surface of the dent” (claim 10 – emphasis added).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Takamatsu et al. (USPN 2017/0158056), Aoki et al. (USPN 9,126,483), Yokota et al. (USPN 2019/0009676), Takamatsu et al. (USPN 2017/0158056), Segawa (USPN 2017/0249923), Jang (USPN 2016/0159386), Suzuki et al. (USPN 2019/0202291) and You et al. (USPN 2017/0212633) teach multiple displays in a vehicle;
Abe et al. (USPN 2011/0148779) and Suzuki (USPN 2012/0094773) teach the usage of a touch panel to provide a GUI for a game on a different display;
Polisson et al. (USPN 2018/0050698) teaches thumbprint detection in a vehicle touch panel; and
Ganey et al. (USPN 9,542,097) teaches touch detection including distinguishing between a thumb and a finger.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTONIO J XAVIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7688. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 830am-5pm PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PATRICK EDOUARD can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANTONIO XAVIER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights