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 . Claims 8-14 were previously pending. Claims 8, 12, and 14 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled or newly added. Thus, claims 8-14 remain pending and have been examined in this application.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
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 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 8, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pouderoux (WO 2019/016102 A1, cited in the Information Disclosure Statement received 3/20/2023, a full machine translation was attached to the Office Action dated 11/6/2024 and is being relied upon) in view of Matsuo (US 2012/0162243 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Pouderoux discloses a display device for displaying a graphical representation of information (see at least Fig. 1, [0034] – security display device 100), the display device comprising: a first interface for receiving the information from an information source via a first transmission path (see at least Fig. 1, [0040-0041] – the input signals S1, S2, S3 arriving at the level of the control means 21, 22, 23 are all identical and identical to the input signal S arriving at the input port 30 of the device 100); a second interface for receiving the information from the information source via a second transmission path (see at least Fig. 1, [0040-0041] – the input signals S1, S2, S3 arriving at the level of the control means 21, 22, 23 are all identical and identical to the input signal S arriving at the input port 30 of the device 100); the display device being configured: to provide a first part of a complete display of the graphical representation in a first color using the information received by said first interface (see at least Figs. 1, 3-4, [0041] - The input signals S1, S2, S3 arriving at the level of the control means 21, 22, 23 are all identical and identical to the input signal S arriving at the input port 30 of the device 100. So they all contain the same information to display. The user therefore sees a superposition of identical information which is displayed simultaneously on each of the matrices 11 , 12, 13. The input signal S is a video type signal containing still or moving images. Thanks to the security display device 100 according to the invention, when there is a failure at the level of a matrix, its control means, or more generally of an element of the information processing chain, the user instantly perceives a variation of the information displayed as illustrated by way of example in figure 3. This variation may be a variation in shape, appearance, size, color, positioning, brightness, etc.); to provide a second part of the complete display of the graphical representation in a second color using the information received by said second interface (see at least Figs. 1, 3-4, [0041]); said first part and said second part being independently provided from information received via the first transmission path and second transmission path, respectively, and said first part and second part form two layers of a complete display when they are added together and said layers being layers of processed data (see at least Figs. 1, 3-4, [0041]); to display the graphical representation for a viewer in a complete color which is formed by adding the first and second colors to one another (see at least Figs. 1, 3-4, [0041]); and said first part and second part form two layers of a complete display when they are added together, said layers being layers of processed data (see at least Figs. 1, 3-4, [0041]).
Pouderoux does not appear to explicitly disclose to store processed data of at least one of the layers in a memory, and to combine the layers by addition of the processed data in the context of data processing such that the complete display is formed from the added processed data prior to displaying the graphical representation for the viewer.
Matsuo, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: said first part and said second part being independently provided from information received via the first transmission path and second transmission path, respectively (see at least Fig. 4, [0050-0052] – via upper layer drawing means 100 and lower layer drawing means 200); to store processed data of at least one of the layers in a memory (see at least Fig. 3, [0047-0048] - The upper layer 300, the lower layer 400, a compressed layer 5500, a frame buffer 600, and a transparent color information storage region 5310 are provided in the main memory 1050, and serve as storage regions in which data required for combining the display layers is temporarily stored.), and to combine the layers by addition of the processed data in the context of data processing such that the complete display is formed from the added processed data prior to displaying the graphical representation for the viewer (see at least Figs. 1, 3, [0040-0042, 0047, 0049-0050] - the combined image data for the combined image 610 that is obtained by combining the image in the upper layer 300 and the image in the lower layer 400 is stored in this frame buffer 600… the combined image data for the combined image 610 is transmitted by the display control unit 700 to the display device 800).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Matsuo into the invention of Pouderoux with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a display control device that implements a combination processing method with improved processing efficiency and speed (Matsuo – [0012, 0042]). Processing or analyzing data/information/signals prior to displaying would facilitate displaying the correct information in the correct location to produce the desired resulting image. Furthermore, this modification is applying a known technique (Matsuo’s addition of layers of processed data) to a known device (Pouderoux’s invention) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 12 and 14, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 8, and it has been determined that claims 12 and 14 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 8; therefore, claims 12 and 14 are also rejected over the same rationale as claim 8.
Claims 9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pouderoux in view of Matsuo and Porsch (US 9,592,844 B2, cited in the Information Disclosure Statements received 3/20/2023 and 3/22/2023).
Regarding claim 9, Pouderoux discloses wherein: the complete color is a color which indicates a validity of the information (see at least Figs. 1, 3-4, [0041]).
Pouderoux does not appear to explicitly disclose each of the first and second colors are error colors which indicate that the information is erroneous.
Porsch, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: each of the first and second colors are error colors which indicate that the information is erroneous (see at least Figs. 1-3, column 2, lines 47-57, column 3, lines 23-63, and column 4, lines 8-17 – the speed information is easy to read for the driver on all segments because of the uniform blue mixed color when correct as shown in Fig. 1, an impaired speed display is signaled to the driver and indicate faulty speed determination to the driver as shown in Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Porsch into the invention of Pouderoux with a reasonable expectation of success because in this way the information is easy to read for a locomotive driver and indicates if the signal is correct (Porsch - column 2, lines 47-57, column 3, lines 23-63, and column 4, lines 8-17).
Regarding claim 11, Pouderoux does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the information is safety-relevant information relating to the safety of a rail-guided vehicle.
Porsch, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the information is safety-relevant information relating to the safety of a rail-guided vehicle (see at least Figs. 1-3, column 2, lines 47-57, column 3, lines 23-63).
The motivation to combine Pouderoux and Porsch is the same as in the rejection of claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 13, Pouderoux discloses comprising the display system according to claim 12 (see claim 12 above).
Pouderoux does not appear to explicitly disclose a rail-guided vehicle, comprising the display system.
Porsch, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: a rail-guided vehicle, comprising the display system (see at least Figs. 1-3, column 2, lines 47-57, column 3, lines 23-63).
The motivation to combine Pouderoux and Porsch is the same as in the rejection of claim 9 above.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pouderoux in view of Matsuo and Lee (KR 10-1658557 B1, a full machine translation was attached to the Office Action dated 11/6/2024 and is being relied upon).
Regarding claim 10, Pouderoux discloses wherein: the display device is configured to display the graphical representation in the complete color with a background in a background color (see at least Figs. 3-4).
Pouderoux does not appear to explicitly disclose the first part has a marking in a first background color in a given partial region of the background, and the second part has the marking in a second background color in the given partial region of the background; and the first background color and the second background color, when correctly displayed, form the background color of the complete display by addition of the first and second background colors.
Lee, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: the first part has a marking in a first background color in a given partial region of the background (see at least Fig. 4, [0038-0039]), and the second part has a second marking in a second background color in the given partial region of the background (see at least Fig. 5, [0038-0039]); and the first background color and the second background color, when correctly displayed, form the background color of the complete display by addition of the first and second background colors (see at least Figs. 4-6, [0038-0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Lee into the invention of Pouderoux with a reasonable expectation of success. Lee teaches that this can be easily adopted for digitalized images and electronic display means (Lee – [0019]). Halftones and superimposing different colors on different layers of displays is widely used in various applications and for various purposes. Since Pouderoux teaches superimposing colors of the display to indicate the correctness of the information based on how the complete display is viewed by a person, and Lee teaches superimposing different background colors to essentially hide a background marker, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the usefulness of implementing Lee’s teachings regarding the background as an additional feature in Pouderoux’s invention. This would provide another means for allowing the person to easily distinguish between correct and incorrect displays.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-11 filed 6/8/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. (1) Applicant argues that Pouderoux teaches away from the use of the software-based approach that is cited in Matsuo because traditional detection of security flaws involves the use of complex software which is expensive and unreliable – including redundancy loops for control via software for the information displayed in relation to the information transmitted to the display, which is increasingly complex and costly. (2) Applicant argues that incorporating the teachings of Matsuo would change the principle of operation of Pouderoux. (3) Applicant argues that in Matsuo the layers are merged into one before displaying, while the amended claim preserves the independent significance of each layer.
The examiner respectfully disagrees that Pouderoux teaches away from the the approach cited in Matsuo. The prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (see also MPEP § 2123). Pouderoux mentions the disadvantages of the redundancy loops specifically described in US 2012/0036418 A1. This ‘418 reference includes a comparison control unit which performs a cyclic redundancy check over an arbitrary region of the image data displayed on the display unit to perform error detection by comparing arithmetic processing. Pouderoux is referring to the complexity and speed issues of actually performing the error detection, not the complexity and speed of producing the display. Pouderoux overcomes the speed and complexity issues by sending signals with the same information to different layers of a display such that when they are superimposed a user can instantly perceive a variation in the display because of a variation in shape, appearance, size, color, positioning, brightness, etc. By superimposing layers of a display Pouderoux is eliminating the need to implement redundancy loops similar to those in the ‘418 reference. Pouderoux appears to be silent as to whether these layers are physically superimposed as separate physical layers of a display or digitally superimposed. Matsuo is digitally superimposed or combining layers to form the display. This modification is entirely unrelated to any redundancy loops and is merely demonstrating that superimposing layers of a display can be done digitally. Furthermore, Matsuo cites that the layers are combined via digital processing efficiently and at higher speeds by skipping over transparent pixels.
The examiner respectfully disagrees that incorporating the teachings of Matsuo would change the principle operation of Pouderoux. Pouderoux’s goal is to overcome the speed and complexity issues by sending signals with the same information to different layers of a display such that when they are superimposed a user can instantly perceive a variation in the display because of a variation in shape, appearance, size, color, positioning, brightness, etc. By superimposing layers of a display Pouderoux is eliminating the need to implement redundancy loops similar to those in the ‘418 reference. Pouderoux appears to be silent as to whether these layers are physically superimposed as separate physical layers of a display or digitally superimposed. Matsuo is digitally superimposed or combining layers to form the display. This modification is entirely unrelated to any redundancy loops and is merely demonstrating that superimposing layers of a display can be done digitally. This is not changing the principle operation of Pouderoux.
It is unclear what difference Applicant is attempting to distinguish between Matsuo and the claimed invention by arguing that in Matsuo the layers are merged into one before displaying, while the amended claim preserves the independent significance of each layer. Applicant’s own invention as shown in Figure 1 merges parts 19 and 25 before displaying at the complete display 27. It appears that Matsuo does the same by separately producing display layers and then combining them.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/CAITLIN R MCCLEARY/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights