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 1 to 20 are presented for examination. The amendment filed 1-14-2026 cancelled claims 2 and 12.
s
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the information disclosure statement submitted on 4-16-2026 have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449).
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities: please correct the dependency for claims 3 and 4, they are currently dependent on a canceled claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (2024/0105087) in view of Tzannes (USPAP 2018/0341544).
Claims 1, 11 and 19:
Jeong substantially teaches the claimed invention. Jeong teaches a method and an apparatus for inspecting image data, the method comprising: a display device (100) having a plurality of panel driving devices (110, 120, 130 & 140) and a display panel (150) (see par. 0029). Jeong teaches that the driving devices generates signals for displaying images on the display panel (see par. 0032). Jeong teaches that a frame (500) includes vertical blank period, a horizontal blank period, image data and cyclic redundancy check (CRC) data (600) that has horizontal lines within the image data (550) (see par. 0064). Jeong teaches that the CRC data is for at least one partial area among areas of the image data included in the frame (see par. 0065).
Jeong teaches that the CRC data may include a first CRC (601) for a first partial area and a second CRC data (602) for a second partial area and the partial areas are among the image data of the frame (see par. 0065). Jeong teaches that the CRC is calculated for the partial areas (see par. 0066). Jeong teaches that each CRC data corresponds to each partial area and may be set to a bit size (see par. 0073).
Jeong teaches that a CRC extractor (1040) extracts CRC data stored in the image buffer and a CRC generator (150) may generate CRC from data corresponding to each partial area identified by the CRC extractor (see par. 0090). Jeong teaches that a CRC checker (1060) (“comparison”) determined if an error has occurred in the specific partial area based on evaluation of the CRC’s (see par. 0090).
Jeong fails to specifically teach the steps of updating one or more additional counters based at least on one or more additional comparisons of the computed second checksum and a second plurality of checksums; and causing an alert associated with display of the frame on the screen to be generated base at least on the one or more counters or the one or more additional counters; however, Tzannes in an analogous art teaches a method and an apparatus to accurately and efficiently calculate and report communication errors comprises a receiver computing CRC bits (local CRC bits) for the received transmitted data and transmitted CRC and comparing the local CRC with the received CRC to detect errors (see par. 0061 et seq.). Tzannes teaches that a count is performed with a CRC anomaly counter and reporting module outputs indication of severely errored seconds (see par. 0062 et seq.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for inspecting image data of Jeong to include the method for detecting errors in a data stream using a comparison process and a counter as taught by Tzannes because, Tzannes teaches that a method for accurately and efficiently detecting errors of a data stream and reporting the severely errored seconds (SES) includes comparing multiple computed CRC’s and advancing a count value. This modification would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ a method for accurately detecting and reporting errors of a data stream using the computation of multiple CRC’s and counters as taught by Tzannes (see par. 0003).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 to 10, 13 to 18 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chaudhari et al. (USPAP 2019/0051266) discloses technology for end-to-end display integrity verification.
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 SHELLY A CHASE whose telephone number is (571)272-3816. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-5:30, 2nd Friday 8:00-4:30.
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, Albert Decady can be reached at 571-272 3819. 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.
/Shelly A Chase/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights