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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/6/2026 has been entered.
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]); 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: 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 with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-982. The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Raynor (US 2006/0248030 A1) is directed to a method of processing a first digital image by combining the first digital image with a second digital image includes the first digital image being received from a pixel array, and when receiving the first digital image it is converted into a first continuous sequential data stream. The second digital image may be provided in the form of a second continuous sequential data stream, and the first and second digital images may be combined by continuously combining the data in the first and second data stream.
Lee (US 2016/0225350 A1) is directed to an combination device including an SGL control unit separating a plurality of layers into a first group layer and a second group layer not overlapping the first group layer, and a multi-layer blender combining the first group layer to produce a first composite image in a first frame and combining the second group layer including updated layers with the first composite image of the first frame to produce a second composite image in a second frame subsequent to the first frame.
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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669