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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The response received on March 5, 2026 has been placed in the file and was considered by the examiner. An action on the merit follows.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 2026 March 5 have been fully considered. Response to these amendments is provided below.
Summary of Amendment/ Arguments and Examiner’s Response:
The applicant has amended new limitations in the claims. The applicant argues on page 8 of the remarks a summary of Paul, the 102 reference from the previous rejection. The applicant also argues that Paul does not disclose the claimed amendments of accounting for minor or momentary deviations of an image hash from a reference.
It is noted that it appears as if the applicant is referencing the 102 reference Gulati, as there is no mention of “hash” in the Paul reference. Furthermore, the applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
It is further noted that the applicant has amended the claim so that the device includes a “processor”, to overcome the previous 101 rejection. In paragraph 18 of the PGPub, the applicant provides many examples of hardware implementations of a processor, and also states “Any other type of implementation of the respective functions described in more detail below may also be understood to be a processor, controller or logic circuit.” The specification further mentions, with the implementation of software is run on a processor (i.e. paragraphs 29 and 56 of the PGPub). Therefore, one can only reasonably interpret that the processor is NOT software, the examiner is interpreting the claims as such, and the claims are considered eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 4-11 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 5 recites the limitation "the image data analyzer" in line 2 and 3, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 7 and 17 recite the limitation “the value” in lines 2-3, 2 and 2, respectively. It is unclear as to which value the applicant is referring to, since multiple “values” are previously claimed.
Claims 2, 17 and 18 recite the limitation "the comparison of the value" in line 5, 3 and 4, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 4 and 19 recite the limitation "the safety checker" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 6 and 8 recite the limitation "the image" in line 2. It is unclear as to which image the applicant is referring to.
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, 5-8 14-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200198466 (Gulati et al) in view of U.S. Patent NO. 5267068 (Torihata).
Regarding claim 16, Gulati et al discloses a method for analyzing image data (fig. 6), comprising: receiving data representing successive images for display (fig. 6, item 602, over the course of several iterations) on a vehicle display (fig. 1, item 112); identifying a common, safety-relevant part of each of the successive images based on the data, i.e. a region of interest with the same safety relevant parts (fig. 2, item 606, fig. 4a-4c, regions shown, fig. 5, ROIs) selected by the user in the process of fig. 3; determining a set of successive values that respectively represent the identified, common, safety-relevant part of each image of the successive images, i.e. the values that are compared in fig. 6, item 612 and as determined by processing the image of fig. 6, item 607; implementing a first mode of operation when a the comparison of the set of successive values to a reference value is within a comparison range, wherein a “match” result of the comparison of fig. 6, item 612 for all images that go through the process of fig. 6 is within the comparison range when the first mode of item 614 of fig. 6 is implemented (page 8, paragraph 77); and implementing a second mode of operation when the comparison of the set of successive values to the reference value is outside of the comparison range, when one of the values of images of fig. 6, if there is “no match” and outside the comparison range, the second mode of fig. 6, item 616 is implemented, wherein the first mode of operation comprises not sending a signal indicating an error (fig. 6, item 614) and wherein the second mode of operation comprises sending a signal indicating an error (fig. 6, item 616). Furthermore, Gulati et al discloses when the values are outside of the comparison range, the values indicate an error (fig. 6, item 612, 616).
Gulati et al does not disclose expressly implementing the error mode when a number of contiguous values of successive values that indicate error exceeds a threshold value greater than one.
Torihata discloses implementing the error mode when a number of contiguous values of successive values that indicate error exceeds a threshold value greater than one by indicating error only after five successive frame signals indicate error, a threshold value of 4 (col. 11, lines 9-14).
Gulati et al and Torihata are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. error indication for users.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have contiguous values indicate error.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more robust method by making sure that the error is consistent..
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the display method of Gulati et al with the sequential error insurance of Torihata to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 16. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 16 are equally applicable to claims 1 and 20. Claims 1 and 20 distinguish from claim 16 only in that claim 1 is a device with image data analyzer and a safety checker that carry out the method, and claim 20 is a non-transitory computer readable medium that carries out the method of claim 16, and that claim 20 claims the second mode is different from the first mode. Gulati et al teaches further this feature, i.e. the device (fig. 1, fig. 10) with image data analyzer, fig. 1, item 106, fig. 10, item 1010, that which carries out fig. 6, items 602-608, and safety checker, fig. 1, item 107, fig. 10, item 1010, that which carries out fig. 6, item 612, and a non-transitory computer readable medium (page 11, paragraph 106), and the first mode is different than the second mode (fig. 6, item 614 and 616 are different)..
Regarding claim 5, Gulati et al discloses a secure memory that is configured to store the data (page 3, paragraph 31, 32, 36, page 4, paragraph 37); wherein receiving the data by means of the image data analyzer comprises receiving the data from the secure memory (page 3, paragraph 31, 32, 36, page 4, paragraph 37).
Regarding claim 6, Gulati et al discloses the safety-relevant part of the image comprises a part of the image indicating at least one of the following: a speed of the vehicle; whether a seat belt is fastened; whether a door is closed; a warning (fig. 4a, item 301c); whether a parking brake is applied; whether a motor/engine control function is active; a collision warning, and/or a tire pressure (fig. 4a, item 301c).
Regarding claim 7, Gulati et al discloses the value, because the value is based on the safety relevant part of the image of fig. 6, item 606, indicates at least one of the following: a vehicle speed; whether a seat belt is fastened or whether a seat belt is not fastened; an open or closed door; the presence or absence of a warning (fig. 4a, items 301a-301b); an application of a parking brake; an activity of a motor/engine control function; a collision warning, and/or a tire pressure (fig. 1, item 301c).
Regarding claim 8, Gulati et al discloses the safety-relevant part of the image comprises analyzing the data to identify data representing a part of the image indicating a safety-relevant part of the image (fig. 6, item 606, fig. 4a, 4b).
Regarding claim 14, Gulati et al discloses the signal indicating the error is a signal that causes an error message to appear on the display (page 9, paragraph 78, page 4, paragraph 41).
Regarding claim 15, Gulati et al discloses the safety device is configured as a vehicle or as a part of a vehicle (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Gulati et al discloses determining a set of successive values calculated from successive images for display on the vehicle display that differ from the reference value, i.e. when the successive images for displays occur at the next run of fig. 6, after the output of fig. 6, item 614; and implementing the second mode of operation if the comparison of the value to the reference value is within the comparison range, since the value on the first iteration would be “yes” and feeding to item 614 and back to item 602, but the number of successive values that differ from the reference value exceeds a threshold value, since the second mode is triggered on the next iteration given that it is out of range/ not a match (fig. 6, item 612, “No”, item 616). Torihata discloses implementing the error mode when a number of contiguous values of successive values that indicate error exceeds a threshold value greater than one by indicating error only after five successive frame signals indicate error, a threshold value of 4 (col. 11, lines 9-14).
Claims 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gulati et al in view of Torihata, as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20120314911 (Paul et al).
Regarding claim 2, Gulati et al (as modified by Torihata) discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference. Gulati et al further discloses the second mode of operation is an error state when there is not a match (fig. 6, item 616), and the safety device implements the error state when there is no match (fig. 6, item 616, fig. 10, item 1010).
Gulati et al (as modified by Torihata) does not disclose expressly the image data analyzer is further configured to determine an uncertainty of the value of the image for comparison; and there is no match if the comparison of the value to the reference value is within the comparison range but the uncertainty is outside an uncertainty range.
Paul et al discloses the image data analyzer is further configured to determine an uncertainty of the value of the image for comparison, i.e. a confidence between the image and the closest image (page 9, paragraph 76); and there is no match if the comparison of the value to the reference value is within the comparison range, i.e. the values match initially as the closest image (page 9, paragraph 75) but the uncertainty is outside an uncertainty range/ the confidence is below a threshold, and thus is an uncertain match (page 9, paragraph 76).
Gulati et al (as modified by Torihata) & Paul et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. matching images.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to consider the uncertainty of the match.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a faster, more accurate system by allowing quick multiple comparisons.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine device of Gulati et al (as modified by Torihata) with Paul et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 2 are equally applicable to claim 17. Claim 17 distinguishes from claim 2 only in that they have different dependencies, both of which have been previously rejected. Therefore, prior art applies.
Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gulati et al in view of Torihata, as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230054590 (Backhouse et al).
Regarding claim 4, Gulati et al (as modified by Torihata) discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference. Gulati et al further discloses the safety checker is implemented by a processor (fig. 10, item 1010)
Gulati et al (as modified by Torihata) does not disclose expressly a processor corresponds to Automotive Safety Integrity Level D as defined in Part 9 of International Organization for Standardization Standard 26262.
Backhouse et al discloses a process carried out by a processor corresponds to Automotive Safety Integrity Level D as defined in Part 9 of International Organization for Standardization Standard 26262 (page 7, paragraph 34).
Gulati et al (as modified by Torihata) & Backhouse et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. vehicle safety.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a processor correspond to safety standards.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a safer system by adhering to safety standards
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine device of Gulati et al (as modified by Torihata) with the corresponding processor of Backhouse et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 4 are equally applicable to claim 19. Claim 19 distinguishes from claim 4 only in that they have different dependencies, both of which have been previously rejected. Therefore, prior art applies.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gulati et al in view of Torihata, as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20200257979 (Luo et al)
Regarding claim 9, Gulati et al (as modified by Torihata) discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference. Gulati et al further discloses the analysis of the data is performed to identify data representing the part of the image that indicates a safety-relevant part of the image (fig. 6, item 606-608).
Gulati et al (as modified by Torihata) does not disclose expressly using an artificial neural network to identify data (page 6, paragraph 142).
Luo et al discloses using an artificial neural network to identify data.
Gulati et al (as modified by Torihata) & Luo et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. image classifying.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use an artificial neural network to identify data.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more updated, automated system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine device of Gulati et al (as modified by Torihata) with the artificial neural network of Luo et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Luo et al discloses the artificial neural network is a recurrent neural network (page 6, paragraph 142).
Regarding claim 11, Luo et al discloses the artificial neural network is a convolutional neural network (page 6, paragraph 142).
Conclusion
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 KATHLEEN YUAN DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2902. The examiner can normally be reached M1:9am-5pm, th1:9am-1pm, fri1 9am-3pm, m2: 9am-5pm, t2:9-5 th2:9am-5pm, f2: 9am-5pm.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached at 5712703717. 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.
/KATHLEEN Y DULANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666 3/24/2026
Prosecution Insights