DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communication filed on 08 September 2025. Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 9-10, 12-13, and 16 are amended. Claims 4, 11 and 17 are canceled. No new claim is added. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-16 and 18-20 are pending in the application and have been considered below.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Based on applicant's amendment, the objections to claims 1, 9 and 16 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that ["Hodri does not disclose comparing a detected icon or icon shape with a plurality of stored icons, much less determining an error between the detected icon and each of the stored icons to determine whether the icon matches one of the stored icons, and presenting a safety icon overlay when there is no match as in the pending claims. This lack of comparison renders Hodri less effective than the solutions recited in the pending claims. Applicant acknowledges that Tae's image monitoring system uses an edge detection algorithm to detect the numbers on a license plate in a real-time image. However, Tae does not mention or suggest comparing detected icons to stored icons, using an error metric to determine a match, or presenting a safety icon overlay when there is no match. The combination of Hodri and Tae are therefore wholly lacking any teachings relating to the claimed determining whether a detected icon matches any of a plurality of stored icons and, if not, presenting a safety icon overlay and cannot properly form the basis of an obviousness rejection" (Page 3)].
The argument described above has been considered, and are persuasive. Therefore, rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, a new ground of rejection is made, citing the new reference MAIER et al. (US20190332886A1) (see claim 1 rejection below).
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HODRI (US20200117412A1) in view of TAE et al. (KR102122853B1) and further view of MAIER et al. (US20190332886A1).
As to claim 1, HODRI teaches an icon validation system (See Abstract, wherein a method for checking a validity of image data, in which the image data is assigned to a display device; See also Figs. 1-2, par. 0026; as taught by HODRI);
comprising: a vehicle display associated with a vehicle, the vehicle display configured to present graphics and an icon indicative of a state of the vehicle; a memory configured to store a plurality of icons (See par. 0027, wherein FIG. 2 schematically shows a representation of a display system 26. Display system 26 is configured to carry out, in particular, the method for checking a validity of image data. Display system 26 includes a controller 28, a graphics controller 32, a monitoring module 36 and a display unit 22, for example, a display, for example, a LCD. Controller 28 communicates with a vehicle bus 27 and in this way receives pieces of information from the vehicle bus, for example, pieces of information to be displayed on a display device 22 according to FIG. 1. Pieces of information may, on the one hand, be pieces of information according to FIG. 1 as well as, for example, symbols, for example, warning symbols, and/or script or letters; see also pars. 0028-0030; as taught by HODRI);
compare the detected icon with the plurality of stored icons (see par. 0003, wherein the image data are classified into at least two groups as a function of a color value of the image data and/or as a function of a brightness value of the image data, a test value for the respective group being ascertained from the image data of at least one group. The ascertained test value of a group is compared with a predefined test value of the respective group. A validity of the image data is established only when the ascertained test value of the respective group and the predefined test value of the respective group coincide. An invalidity of the image data is established when the ascertained test value of the respective group and the predefined test value of the respective group do not coincide; as taught by HODRI);
wherein when it is determined that the detected icon does not match any of the plurality of stored icons, present a safety icon overlay over the icon (See par. 0030, wherein if a validity of the image data is not established in controller 28 and/or in monitoring module 36, monitoring module 36 and/or controller 28 is/are then configured to generate an error message; see also par. 0031, wherein other warning symbols and/or script or letters may also be displayed, however, for example, symbols and/or script or letters of a vehicle safety system; see also par. 0032; as taught by HODRI).
HODRI does not expressly teach a processor configured to: detect an icon when overlaid on the presented graphics on the vehicle display; determine an error between the detected icon and each of the plurality of stored icons; determine that the detected icon matches at least one of the plurality of stored icons when the error between the detected icon and the at least one of the plurality of stored icons is lower than an error threshold value; and determine that the detected icon does not match any of the plurality of stored icons when the error between the detected icon and each of the plurality of stored icons is greater than the error threshold value.
In similar field of endeavor, TAE teaches and a processor configured to: detect an icon when overlaid on the presented graphics on the vehicle display (See pars. 0033-0040, for example par. 0036, wherein the edge component of the object may detect a contour of the object using a general edge detection algorithm such as a second derivative using Laplacian operation; See also par. 0037, wherein the vehicle information means basic information about the vehicle, such as a vehicle number, vehicle type, displacement, and year; as taught by TAE).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the HODRI apparatus to include the teachings of TAE wherein a processor configured to: detect an icon when overlaid on the presented graphics on the vehicle display. Such a person would have been motivated to make this combination as it is standard and efficient method to use well established algorithms for edge detection.
HODRI and TAE do not expressly teach determine an error between the detected icon and each of the plurality of stored icons; determine that the detected icon matches at least one of the plurality of stored icons when the error between the detected icon and the at least one of the plurality of stored icons is lower than an error threshold value; and determine that the detected icon does not match any of the plurality of stored icons when the error between the detected icon and each of the plurality of stored icons is greater than the error threshold value.
In similar field of endeavor, TAE teaches MAIER teaches determine an error between the detected icon and each of the plurality of stored icons (see par. 0033; wherein the method may comprise determining that the display icon does not match the reference icon if the categorization information and the reference data indicate that an error threshold amount of the areas of the display icon have been categorized in a different way from corresponding reference areas of the reference icon. That is, the number of areas of the display icon that are categorized differently from their corresponding reference areas of the reference icon may be counted, and the display icon may be determined not to match the reference icon if this number exceeds a particular value, e.g. if the number is more than or equal to an error threshold amount; as taught by MAIER);
determine that the detected icon matches at least one of the plurality of stored icons when the error between the detected icon and the at least one of the plurality of stored icons is lower than an error threshold value (see par. 0035; wherein the method may comprise determining that the display icon does match the reference icon if the categorization information and the reference data indicate that a given number or proportion of the areas of the display icon have been categorized in the same way as corresponding reference areas of the reference icon; see also pars. 0063-0065 and 0070-0077; as taught by MAIER);
and determine that the detected icon does not match any of the plurality of stored icons when the error between the detected icon and each of the plurality of stored icons is greater than the error threshold value (see par. 0034; wherein the method may comprise determining that the display icon does not match the reference icon if a drop threshold amount of the areas of the display icon have been categorized as corresponding to none of the image regions. That is, the number of areas of the display icon that are categorized as corresponding to none of the image regions may be counted, and the display icon may be determined not to match the reference icon if this number exceeds a particular value, e.g. if the number is more than or equal to a drop threshold amount; as taught by MAIER).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the HODRI and TAE apparatus to include the teachings of MAIER to determine an error between the detected icon and each of the plurality of stored icons; determine that the detected icon matches at least one of the plurality of stored icons when the error between the detected icon and the at least one of the plurality of stored icons is lower than an error threshold value; and determine that the detected icon does not match any of the plurality of stored icons when the error between the detected icon and each of the plurality of stored icons is greater than the error threshold value. Such a person would have been motivated to make this combination as it is desirable to allow some differences between display icons and their corresponding reference icons, so that a degree of image processing may be tolerated, but at the same to ensure that the display icons match their corresponding reference icons, i.e. to a sufficient degree depending on the particular circumstances (see also MAIER pars. 0005-0006).
As to claim 2, HODRI, TAE and MAIER teach the limitations of claim 1. TAE further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to detect the icon based on its shape using an edge detection algorithm (See pars. 0033-0040, for example par. 0036, wherein the edge component of the object may detect a contour of the object using a general edge detection algorithm such as a second derivative using Laplacian operation; as taught by TAE)[see also HODRI, pars. 0028-0030; and MAIER, pars. 0123-0125].
As to claim 3, HODRI, TAE and MAIER teach the limitations of claim 2. HODRI further teaches compare a background color of the presented graphics over which the icon is overlaid with an icon color of the icon; and determine an observability of the icon; wherein when the determined observability of the icon is below an observability threshold value, change the color of the icon to a color that contrasts with the background color (see figs. 3-7b, pars. 0057-0062, e.g. par. 0057, wherein FIG. 6 shows a representation of a symbol on a part of a display device 22 according to FIG. 3. The difference with respect to FIG. 3 is that background 81 of symbol 42 is represented as too bright or with an excessively high brightness value and/or with an excessively high color value. In other words, the image data of background 81 have excessively high brightness values and/or excessively high color values in contrast to the image data of color stamp 44 of the symbol, as a result of which symbol 42 is hardly distinguishable by an observer from background 81; see par. 0062, wherein the new, calibrated maximum color value of the three basic colors red 82, green 84 and blue 86 are known during the white balance of display device 22 and are conveyed to a unit of display system 26. Thus, when classifying the image data into the different groups, for example, into first group 50, in which all image data are classified according to FIG. 4 that have a maximum color value, these new, calibrated maximum color values may each be used for the three basic colors red 82, green 84 and blue 86. This may also be used for the classification of the image data into second group 52 according to FIG. 4; as taught by HODRI).
As to claim 5, HODRI, TAE and MAIER teach the limitations of claim 3. HODRI further teaches wherein the icon is animated (See par. 0010, wherein since a threshold of a color value and/or a brightness value is considered here, animated image data or backgrounds may advantageously also be classified into this group; as taught by HODRI).
As to claim 6, HODRI, TAE and MAIER teach the limitations of claim 3. HODRI further teaches wherein the presented graphics are animated (See par. 0010, wherein since a threshold of a color value and/or a brightness value is considered here, animated image data or backgrounds may advantageously also be classified into this group. An animated background may, for example, be a map of a navigation and/or a switchable background image of the display device; see also par. 0007; as taught by HODRI).
As to claim 7, HODRI, TAE and MAIER teach the limitations of claim 1. HODRI further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: generate one or more criteria for validating the icon including a processing request (See par. 0006, wherein by classifying the image data into at least two groups, it is possible to calculate the test value for a group, in each case from the image data of the respective group. In this way, the method becomes safer, simpler and may be carried out more quickly for the purpose of checking due to a reduced data set, as a result of which computing capacity may be saved; see also par. 0007, wherein If, for example, an area behind a symbol changes, it may be ensured based on the classification into at least two groups that the symbol is recognized and a validity of the image data may be checked with the aid of the method; see also pars. 0008 and 0017; as taught by HODRI); generate one or more expected results; transmit the processing request to a graphics processing unit (GPU); receive processed results from the GPU; and compare the processed results with the one or more expected results to verify the processed results (See par. 0028, wherein with the aid of these pieces of information 27, controller 28 of display system 26 generates control data 30, which are transmitted to graphics controller 32. With the aid of control data 30, graphics controller 32 generates image data 34, which are conveyed to a monitoring module 36. Monitoring module 36 calculates certain characteristics, for example, a test value for images 34 classified into at least two groups. For this purpose, image data 34 are classified into at least two groups as a function of a color value of image data 34 and/or of a brightness value of image data 34. Monitoring module 36 advantageously transmits ascertained test value 38 of at least one group to controller 28. For this purpose, monitoring module 36 may be directly connected to controller 28. Controller 28 is configured to compare ascertained test value 38 of a group with a predefined test value of the respective group. Predefined test values 38 may be stored, for example, in a memory 39 in controller 28 and/or conveyed via vehicle bus 27. Controller 28 establishes a validity of image data 34 only when ascertained test value 38 of the respective group and predefined test value 38 of the respective group coincide; see also par. 0029, wherein Alternatively, monitoring module 36 may further also be configured to compare ascertained test value 38 of a group with a predefined test value of the respective group, as well as to establish a validity and/or an invalidity of image data 34 conveyed by graphics controller 32; as taught by HODRI).
Claims 9 and 16 amount to the combined system of systems of claim 1 and claim 2. Accordingly, claims 9 and 16 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claims 1 and 2 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Claim 10 amounts to the system of claim 3. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 3 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Claim 12 amounts to the system of claim 5. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 5 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Claim 13 amounts to the system of claim 6. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 6 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Claim 14 and 19 amount to the system of claim 7. Accordingly, claims 14 and 19 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 7 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Claim 18 amounts to the system of claim 2. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 2 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Claims 8, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HODRI (US20200117412A1) in view of TAE et al. (KR102122853B1) and further view of MAIER et al. (US20190332886A1) and further view of TANIGAWA et al. (US20180113997A1).
As to claim 8, HODRI, TAE and MAIER teach the limitations of claim 7. HODRI further teaches validate the icon based on the one or more expected results for each frame of the icon (See Fig. 1-6, par. 0017, wherein the image data are classified into at least two groups as a function of a color value of the image data and/or of a brightness value of the image data. The monitoring module is configured to ascertain from the image data of at least one group a test value for the respective group. The monitoring module is further configured to compare the ascertained test value of a group with a predefined test value of the respective group, the monitoring module establishing a validity of the image data when the ascertained test value of the respective group and of the predefined test value of the respective group coincide; as taught by HODRI).
HODRI, TAE and MAIER do not expressly teach shuffle components of the processing request for each time frame associated with the icon; update the one or more expected results based on the shuffling.
In similar field of endeavor, TANIGAWA teaches shuffle components of the processing request for each time frame associated with the icon; update the one or more expected results based on the shuffling (See Figs. 1-7, par. 0041, wherein Under the control of the controller 11, the image rearranger 15 mixes divided images whose original images are the same and divided images whose original images are different from those divided images and arbitrarily rearranges the mixed divided images, that is, randomly shuffles the divided images. This makes it difficult to identify the location of photography of the image. In addition, the image rearranger 15 newly orders all the divided images in accordance with the arrangement order of all the randomly shuffled divided images; see also par. 0061, wherein in step S110, the controller 11 causes the image rearranger 15 to obtain divided images whose original images are a plurality of pre-processing images stored in the storage unit 16, to mix the obtained divided images, and to execute image rearrangement processing for arbitrarily rearranging the arrangement order of the divided images, that is, for randomly shuffling the divided images, for example, as illustrated in FIG. 6. In this case, the divided images that the image rearranger 15 obtains from the storage unit 16 may be all or some of divided images whose original images are a plurality of pre-processing images. In addition, the image rearranger 15 newly orders all the divided images in accordance with the arrangement order of all the randomly shuffled divided images; see also pars. 0042 and 0109; as taught by TANIGAWA).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the HODRI, TAE and MAIER apparatus to include the teachings of TANIGAWA to shuffle components of the processing request for each time frame associated with the icon; update the one or more expected results based on the shuffling. Such a person would have been motivated to make this combination as it makes it difficult to recognize associations of divided images whose original images are the same (see TANIGAWA, par. 0042).
Claims 15 and 20 amount to the system claims of claim 8. Accordingly, claims 15 and 20 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 8 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Publication Number
Filing Date
Title
US20120092251A1
2010-07-14
Operation system for vehicle
US9958318B2
2013-07-18
Apparatus and method for checking the integrity of visual display information
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KOOROSH NEHCHIRI whose telephone number is (408)918-7643. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 11-7 PST.
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, William L. Bashore can be reached at 571-272-4088. 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.
/KOOROSH NEHCHIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 2174
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174