DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 9-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. KR 20160144008A (See English Translation, hereinafter Lee).
Consider claim 1, Lee teaches a vehicle (Figure 3), comprising: a vehicle body comprising a bodyshell and a vehicle-body front opening (Figure 3, windshield 110 and bodyshell in front of driver 100); a dashboard disposed in an internal space of the bodyshell (Figure 3, 120); a front windshield, wherein the front windshield is mounted in the vehicle-body front opening, and is angled relative to the dashboard (Figure 3, 110 and 120); and a panoramic display screen, wherein the panoramic display screen has a bottom end and a top end opposite to the bottom end (Figures 2-3, 130), the bottom end is fixed on the dashboard (Figure 3, 130 and 120), the top end is away from the dashboard and is close to the front windshield (Figure 3, 130 and 110), and a distance D between the top end and the front windshield (Figure 3, 130 and 110).
Lee does not appear to specifically disclose D ≤ 150 mm.
However, Lee teaches a small distance between 130 and 110 in figure 3. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a particular distance in order to meet design choices. In addition, it is possible to provide the driver with various information necessary for driving without covering the driver's front viewing area as suggested in [0016]. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Consider claim 2, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Lee teaches wherein the panoramic display screen further has a front display surface and a back light-shielding surface facing away from the front display surface (Figure 9, display 133 and housing 131), the back light-shielding surface faces towards the front windshield, the front display surface faces away from the front windshield (Figures 9-10, 131 and 110), the front display surface has an effective display region, and the effective display region is located above the dashboard (Figures 9-10, 130 and 120).
Consider claim 6, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Lee teaches wherein the panoramic display screen has a curved surface structure and is convex towards the front windshield, and the distance D between the top end and the front windshield (Figure 8, 133).
Lee does not appear to specifically disclose D ≤ 100 mm, or D ≤ 50 mm, or D ≤ 30 mm, or D ≤ 20 mm, or D ≤ 10 mm, or D ≤ 5 mm.
However, Lee teaches a small distance between 130 and 110 in figure 3. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a particular distance in order to meet design choices. In addition, it is possible to provide the driver with various information necessary for driving without covering the driver's front viewing area as suggested in [0016]. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Consider claim 9, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Lee teaches wherein the panoramic display screen has a first end and a second end opposite to the first end in a width direction of the bodyshell (Figures 15a-b, 130), the first end at least exceeds a vertical plane that both passes through a first eye-position and is parallel to a forward direction of the vehicle (Figures 15a-b, 100 and 130), the second end at least exceeds a vertical plane that both passes through a second eye-position and is parallel to the forward direction of the vehicle (Figures 15a-b, 100a and 130), the first eye-position is an eye position of an occupant at a first driving seat inside the bodyshell (Figures 15a-b, 100), and the second eye-position is an eye position of the occupant at a second driving seat inside the bodyshell (Figures 15a-b, 100a).
Consider claim 10, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Lee teaches wherein the panoramic display screen has a plurality of display partitions arranged in a width direction of the bodyshell, the panoramic display screen is provided with display units in each of the plurality of display partitions, and display units in different display partitions are independently operatable ([0066], the present invention may display different images on the first and second display areas of the display module 133 through the viewing angle blocking member 137, and in particular, when the vehicle is parked, the driver may display the driver on one display screen. The passengers can be provided different images).
Consider claim 11, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Lee teaches wherein the panoramic display screen further has at least one transition region, each of the at least one transition region is disposed between two adjacent display partitions of the plurality of display partitions (Figure 2, 201, 202 and 204), and a part of the panoramic display screen at the transition region has a minimum radius of curvature (Figure 8, 133 and R).
Lee does not appear to specifically disclose curvature less than 300 mm, or less than 200 mm, or less than 100 mm.
However, Lee teaches a curvature in figure 8.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a particular curvature in order to meet design choices or in order to improve the viewing angle as suggested in [0041]. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Consider claim 12, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 11. In addition, Lee teaches wherein each of the plurality of display partitions has at least one display function, display functions of the plurality of display partitions are switchable with one another (Figure 2, 201-204. [0066], the present invention may display different images on the first and second display areas), and the display function comprises at least one of providing an indirect field of view (Figure 2, 202), providing vehicle status information (Figure 2, 203), providing a window of an in-vehicle intelligent assistant (Figure 2, 204) and providing social media and intelligent office information ([0089], social network).
Consider claim 13, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Lee teaches wherein the panoramic display screen further comprises a support member (Figure 18b, 120); and the support member is fixedly connected to the panoramic display screen and the vehicle body (Figure 18b, 120 and 130), or the support member is movably connected to the panoramic display screen and the vehicle body.
Consider claim 14, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 2. In addition, Lee teaches wherein in a vertical plane passing through a reference eye point of a driver and parallel to a forward direction of the vehicle, an angle between a line connecting a midpoint of the effective display region and the reference eye point of the driver and a horizontal line is a look down angle α (Figure 3, driver 100, midpoint of 130 and corresponding α).
Lee does not appear to specifically disclose the look down angle α satisfies: α ≤ −5°, or α ≤ −8°, or α ≤ −10°.
However, Lee teaches a α angle based on driver 100 and midpoint of 130 positions. In addition, Lee teaches the manipulation lever 179 rotates the plate 171 according to a user's manual operation so that the vertical viewing angle of the bar type display device 130 is adjusted by the user in [0062].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a particular angle in order to meet design choices, or adjusted according to user’ manual operations as suggested in [0062], or the bar type display device is disposed in a dead space inside the vehicle which does not interfere with the driver's view of driving, thereby increasing the space utilization inside the vehicle as suggested in [0027]. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Consider claim 15, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 2. In addition, Lee teaches wherein the effective display region has a top edge and a bottom edge opposite to the top edge, and the bottom edge is closer to the dashboard than the top edge (Figures 2-3, 130); and in a vertical plane passing through a reference eye point of a driver and parallel to a forward direction of the vehicle, an angle defined by a line connecting the top edge and the reference eye point of the driver and a line connecting the bottom edge and the reference eye point of the driver is a visible angle θ (Figures 2-3, driver 100, display 130 and corresponding angle θ).
Lee does not appear to specifically disclose the visible angle θ satisfies: θ ≥ 0.5°, or θ ≥ 3°, or θ ≥ 5°.
However, Lee teaches a θ angle based on driver 100 and display 130 positions. In addition, Lee teaches the manipulation lever 179 rotates the plate 171 according to a user's manual operation so that the vertical viewing angle of the bar type display device 130 is adjusted by the user in [0062].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a particular angle in order to meet design choices, or adjusted according to user’ manual operations as suggested in [0062], or the bar type display device is disposed in a dead space inside the vehicle which does not interfere with the driver's view of driving, thereby increasing the space utilization inside the vehicle as suggested in [0027]. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Consider claim 16, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 2. In addition, Lee teaches wherein in a vertical plane passing through a reference eye point of a driver and parallel to a forward direction of the vehicle, an angle between the effective display region and a horizontal line is an attitude angle β (Figure 3, driver 100, display 130 and corresponding angle β).
Lee does not appear to specifically disclose the attitude angle β satisfies: 45° ≤ β ≤ 150°, or 70° ≤ β ≤ 125°, or 75° ≤ β ≤ 100°.
However, Lee teaches a β angle based on driver 100 and display 130 positions. In addition, Lee teaches the manipulation lever 179 rotates the plate 171 according to a user's manual operation so that the vertical viewing angle of the bar type display device 130 is adjusted by the user in [0062].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a particular angle in order to meet design choices, or adjusted according to user’ manual operations as suggested in [0062], or the bar type display device is disposed in a dead space inside the vehicle which does not interfere with the driver's view of driving, thereby increasing the space utilization inside the vehicle as suggested in [0027]. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Consider claim 17, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Lee teaches wherein the panoramic display screen further comprises a buffer portion, the buffer portion is disposed between the panoramic display screen and the front windshield (Figure 11, 150), and the buffer portion has a hardness SHORE-A satisfying: SHORE-A ≤ 90 (Figure 11, angle formed by 150 and 110).
Consider claim 20, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Lee teaches wherein the front windshield has a transparent region, and the transparent region comprises at least one head-up display region (Figure 21, 110 and region 130); and the vehicle further comprises a head-up display system, and the head-up display system is configured to project a head-up display image onto the head-up display region (Figure 21, 110 and 130).
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Grewal et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0041222 (hereinafter Grewal).
Consider claim 3, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 2. In addition, Lee teaches wherein the back light-shielding surface (Figure 9, display 133 and housing 131).
Lee does not appear to specifically disclose the panoramic display screen has a visible light transmittance less than or equal to 1%.
However, Lee teaches a low visible transmittance housing 133 in figure 9.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a particular transmittance in order to meet design choices. In addition, the bar type display device is disposed in a dead space inside the vehicle which does not interfere with the driver's view of driving, thereby increasing the space utilization inside the vehicle as suggested in [0027] by Lee. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Lee does not appear to specifically disclose black.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Grewal teaches a motor vehicle display in abstract and further teaches a blackout 36 in figure 4.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide black as taught by Grewal since this improves the aesthetic appearance of the motor vehicle when viewed from the front or front quarter of the motor vehicle as suggested in [0025].
Consider claim 4, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Lee does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the front windshield comprises a light-shielding layer comprising a lower light-shielding layer, the lower light-shielding layer is close to the dashboard.
However, Grewal teaches wherein the front windshield comprises a light-shielding layer comprising a lower light-shielding layer, the lower light-shielding layer is close to the dashboard (Figures 2-4, 36 and 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a light-shielding layer as taught by Grewal since this improves the aesthetic appearance of the motor vehicle when viewed from the front or front quarter of the motor vehicle as suggested in [0025].
Grewal does not appear to specifically disclose the lower light-shielding layer has a visible light transmittance less than or equal to 5%.
However, Grewal teaches a blackout 36 in figure 4 with a low visible light transmittance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a particular transmittance in order to meet design choices or in order to improves the aesthetic appearance of the motor vehicle as suggested by Grewal. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Consider claim 5, Lee and Grewal teach all the limitations of claim 4. In addition, Grewal teaches wherein the lower light-shielding layer has an upper boundary and a lower boundary opposite to the upper boundary, the lower boundary is close to the dashboard, the upper boundary is close to the top end of the panoramic display screen (Figures 2-4, 36, 26 and 12), and a distance between the upper boundary and an upper surface of the dashboard is greater than or equal to a distance between the top end of the panoramic display screen and the upper surface of the dashboard (Figures 2-4, 36, 26 and 12), see motivation to combine in claim 4.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claims 6 above, and further in view of Cho et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0304749 (hereinafter Cho).
Consider claim 7, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 6.
Lee does not appear to specifically disclose wherein in a width direction of the bodyshell, the panoramic display screen has a central region and an end region located at opposite ends of the central region, and a radius of curvature of the central region is greater than a radius of curvature of the end region.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Cho teaches a vehicle control device (abstract) and further teaches [0382], the processor 870 may vary a region (one part) where the display unit is bent or an apex of the region where the display unit 820 is bent, based on the change of the display position of the contents. Thus, the combination of Lee and Cho teaches wherein in a width direction of the bodyshell, the panoramic display screen has a central region and an end region located at opposite ends of the central region, and a radius of curvature of the central region is greater than a radius of curvature of the end region (Lee: Figure 8, 133 and R; Cho: Figure 15b, 1510 and 1520).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to different curvature for end regions as taught by Cho with the benefit that display unit is bent, based on the change of the display position of the contents as taught by Cho in [0382-0383].
Consider claim 8, Lee and Cho teach all the limitations of claim 7.
Lee does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the radius of curvature of the end region ranges from 300 mm to 1500 mm, and the radius of curvature of the central region ranges from 1500 mm to 10000 mm.
However, Lee and Cho teach wherein the radius of curvature of the end region ranges is smaller than and the radius of curvature of the central region (Lee: Figure 8, 133 and R; Cho: Figure 15b, 1510 and 1520).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a particular curvature in order to meet design choices or based on the change of the display positions of the contents as suggested by Cho. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Yokota U.S. Patent No. 5,748,369 (hereinafter Yokota).
Consider claim 18, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Lee teaches panoramic display screen (Figure 2, 130).
Lee does not appear to specifically disclose wherein light emitted by the panoramic display screen comprises at least one of P-polarized light, circularly polarized light, and non-polarized light, and when the light emitted by the panoramic display screen comprises the P-polarized light.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Yokota teaches a polarizing beam splitter (abstract) and further teaches wherein light emitted comprises at least one of P-polarized light, circularly polarized light, and non-polarized light (column 7, lines 35-48), and when the light emitted by the comprises the P-polarized light, the P-polarized light accounts for at least 30% of the light emitted (column 7, lines 35-48, almost all of the light from the white light source is converted into P-polarized light and emerges).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide polarized light as taught by Yokota with the benefit that the polarizing illuminating device which can thus emit polarized light in a predetermined direction of polarization is suitable for illuminating a device such as liquid crystal which requires predetermined polarized light as suggested in column 7, lines 5-8).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claims 2 above, and further in view of Chen et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0276522 (hereinafter Chen).
Consider claim 19, In addition, Lee teaches panoramic display screen (Figure 2, 130).
Lee does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the display screen further comprises an optical coating, the optical coating is disposed on the front display surface of the panoramic display screen, and the optical coating comprises at least one of an anti-reflective coating, an anti-fingerprint coating, an anti-glare coating, and a composite coating formed by stacking a 1/4 phase retardation plate and a linear polarizing coating.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Chen teaches a display apparatus (abstract) and further teaches wherein the display screen further comprises an optical coating, the optical coating is disposed on the front display surface of the display screen ([0046] and figure 2a), and the optical coating comprises at least one of an anti-reflective coating, an anti-fingerprint coating, an anti-glare coating, and a composite coating [0046] formed by stacking a 1/4 phase retardation plate and a linear polarizing coating [0059].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of coatings as taught by Chen for protection purposes as suggested in [0046] and for compensation as suggested in [0059].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO W FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-5512. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm, EST.
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, AMR A AWAD can be reached at (571)272-7764. 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.
/ROBERTO W FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights