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 § 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 1-5, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stoyanov (US 20200262339).
Regarding claim 1: Stoyanov teaches a display control device that controls at least one in-vehicle display (Figs. 1-3 and paragraph [0023, 0025-0029] teach in-vehicle display 16 and controller to control the display), the display control device comprising a processor configured to decrease visibility of the at least one display, in response to a user input from a user of a vehicle, wherein the at least one display includes a meter display (Figs. 1-3, 5 and paragraph [0023, 0025-0029, 0034-0035, 0043-0044, 0076] teach a microcontroller 23 including a processor configured to dim or reduce the visibility of the display 16 in response to a user input from a user of a vehicle via the actuating unit 15, and the display includes a meter display).
Regarding claim 2: Stoyanov teaches wherein the processor is configured to decrease a luminance of the meter display (Figs. 1-3, 5 and paragraph [0023, 0025-0029, 0034-0035, 0043-0044, 0076] teach to reduce the dimming level or luminance/brightness of the meter display 16).
Regarding claim 3: Stoyanov teaches wherein the processor is configured to: generate a black image on the meter display; and turn off light of the meter display (Figs. 1-3, 5 and paragraph [0042, 0068-0070, 0089] teach making the meter display completely black, reducing the dimming level to 0% or turning off light of the meter display).
Regarding claim 4: Stoyanov teaches wherein: the meter display includes a plurality of layers; and the processor is configured to display black images on some layers among the plurality of the layers (Figs. 1-3, 5 and paragraph [0042, 0046-0048, 0068-0070, 0089] teach the meter display 16 includes a plurality of layers 30, 40, 50; and to display black screen or opaque state on layer 40).
Regarding claim 5: Stoyanov teaches wherein the some layers are configured not to display a tell-tale (Figs. 1-3, 5 and paragraph [0050-0053, 0068-0070] teach the second layer 40 is configured not to display a tell-tale, while the third layer 50 displays primary tell-tales).
Regarding claim 10: Claim 10 recites similar limitations as in claim 1, except claim 10 is a method claim. Thus, all the arguments made above for claim 1 are applicable for claim 10.
Regarding claim 11: Claim 11 recites similar limitations as in claim 1. Thus, all the arguments made above for claim 1 are applicable for claim 11. Claim 11 further recites a non-transitory storage medium storing instructions that are executable by one or more processors which is also taught by Stoyanov in claim 9, Fig. 2, and paragraph [0009, 0031].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoyanov (US 20200262339) in the view of Jayamohan (US 20140077942).
Regarding claim 6: Stoyanov teaches wherein: the user input includes a first user input for an instruction to turn off light of a first display group, the first display group including the meter display and not including the multimedia display; and the processor is configured to decrease visibility of the first display group in response to the first user input (Figs. 1-3, 5 and paragraph [0023, 0025-0029, 0034-0035, 0043-0044, 0076] teach a first display group includes a meter display; a microcontroller 23 including a processor configured to dim or reduce the visibility of the display 16 in response to a user input from a user of a vehicle via the actuating unit 15).
Stoyanov does not explicitly disclose the at least one display includes a multimedia display; the user input includes a second user input for an instruction to turn off light of a second display group, the second display group including the meter display and the multimedia display; and the processor is configured to decrease visibility of the second display group in response to the second user input.
However, Jayamohan teaches the at least one display includes a multimedia display; the user input includes a second user input for an instruction to turn off light of a second display group, the second display group including the meter display and the multimedia display; and the processor is configured to decrease visibility of the second display group in response to the second user input (Figs. 1, 7-9 and paragraph [0026-0027, 0034, 0044-0059] teach a multimedia display 42; a second display group including a meter display in an instrumental panel 20 in front of the driver and a multimedia display 42, a second user input for an instruction to enter stealth mode with includes decreasing visibility of the second display group). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Stoyanov’s invention by including above teachings of Jayamohan, because utilizing one input to control multiple different components such as displays speeds up the control process and enhances the user experience, as taught by Stoyanov. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 7: Combination of Stoyanov and Jayamohan teach wherein the processor is configured to increase the visibility of the first display group due to an operation of the multimedia display by the user, in a situation where the visibility of the first display group has been decreased (Stoyanov in Figs. 1-3, 5 and paragraph [0023, 0025-0029, 0034-0035, 0043-0044, 0076] teach adjusting the dimming level of the first display based on the user input including increasing or decreasing the dimming level. Jayamohan in Figs. 1, 7-9 and paragraph [0026-0027, 0034, 0044-0059] teach utilizing the multimedia display 42 for user control or user input to enter stealth mode or normal mode which further leads to adjusting the dimming level of the display). See claim 6 rejection for combination reasoning of Stoyanov and Jayamohan, same rationale applies here.
Regarding claim 8: Combination of Stoyanov and Jayamohan teach wherein the processor is configured to increase the visibility of the second display group due to an operation of the multimedia display by the user, in a situation where the visibility of the second display group has been decreased (Jayamohan in Figs. 1, 7-9 and paragraph [0026-0027, 0034, 0044-0059] teach utilizing the multimedia display 42 for user control or user input to enter stealth mode or normal mode). See claim 6 rejection for combination reasoning of Stoyanov and Jayamohan, same rationale applies here.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoyanov (US 20200262339) in the view of Bensaid (US 20230311609).
Regarding claim 9: Stoyanov does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to: set a mode of the vehicle to a state keeping mode, the state keeping mode being a mode in which a vehicle state is kept based on an instruction from the user, the vehicle state being a vehicle state where electric power is supplied to an air conditioner of the vehicle and the at least one display and is not supplied to a drive system of the vehicle; and permit decrease in the visibility of the at least one display, in response to setting the mode of the vehicle to the state keeping mode.
However, Bensaid teaches wherein the processor is configured to: set a mode of the vehicle to a state keeping mode, the state keeping mode being a mode in which a vehicle state is kept based on an instruction from the user, the vehicle state being a vehicle state where electric power is supplied to an air conditioner of the vehicle and the at least one display and is not supplied to a drive system of the vehicle; and permit decrease in the visibility of the at least one display, in response to setting the mode of the vehicle to the state keeping mode (Figs. 1-2, 5 and paragraph [0021-0028, 0031, 0035-0036, 0072] teach set a designated mode of the vehicle to a state keeping mode or camping mode based on an instruction from the user, the vehicle is turned off and parked (meaning no power to drive system) and the HVAC is kept on and display is kept on, and further allowing the user to decrease the visibility of the displays or turning off the displays). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Stoyanov’s invention by including above teachings of Bensaid, because utilizing a mode to control multiple different components such as displays and HVAC speeds up the control process allowing the user to easily change settings of various components with one input and enhances the user experience, as taught by Bensaid. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIT CHATLY whose telephone number is (571)270-1610. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 5712707230. 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.
/AMIT CHATLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights