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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 1 and 10, “an acquirer that acquires”, is mapped to an input interface and alternatively a sensor, camera, and/or detector, see applicant’s paragraphs 0038-0039.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1, 10-11 “recites” abstract ideas under the 2019 PEG:
Step 2A – Prong One
Claim 1 and 10-11 recites data acquisition and data manipulation steps, including:
Acquiring “failure region information”;
Identifying a “displayable region” by omitting a “failure region” from a “display region; and
Reconstructing and outputting the reconstructed displayable region
These limitations are directed to a judicial exception, namely mental processes (evaluating region information and determining a remaining region) and/or mathematical concepts (determining a region by excluding a sub-region and remapping/reconstructing the region for output).
Step 2A – Prong Two
The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it merely applies the abstract idea in a generic display context. The additional elements; “one or more display screens”, an “acquirer”, and a “controller” are recited at a high level of generality and are used only to acquire information, determine an output region, and outputs results. The claim does not recite any specific technical implementation of “reconstructing” and particular display pipeline modification, or any specific improvement to computer or display technology; it instead claims the results of displaying the image in a region that omits the failure region.
Step 2B – No Inventive Concept
The claims additional elements amount to no more than generic computer/display components performing generic functions (acquire, identify, reconstruct, output). The claim does not recite an unconventional arrangement, specialized hardware, or a specific technique that is not well-understood, routine, and conventional. Therefore, the claims do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception and are directed to abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being as being anticipated by Tanaka et al (US 2011/0234574).
Per claim 1 and 10, Tanaka teaches a display control device comprising (abstract):
an acquirer that acquires failure region information indicating a failure region in a display region constructed (0087 teaches monitoring element 41 through 43 detect….the controller determines whether or not a failure occurs based on detection signals. 0091 teaches the controller determines whether a failure occurs; when the failure is detected, the controller 10 determines in which…the failure occurs) on one or more display screens that display an image (Fig. 4); and a controller that (controller 10):
identifies, based on the failure region information acquired by the acquirer, a displayable region obtained by omitting the failure region from the display region (0091 teaches the controller 10 determines a displayable region on the display panel 20. The displayable region is a region corresponding to where the failure is not detected. 0092 further teaches displaying region A and undisplayable region B);
reconstructs the displayable region to display the image in the displayable region identified (0091 teaches then the controller 10 reduces the image…according to the displayable region, and displays it in the displayable region. 0092 teaches the controller compresses the image….and displays the compressed image in the displayable region A); and
outputs the displayable region reconstructed (0091-0092 teaches outputting/displaying the compressed image in the displayable area to avoid the failure region).
Per claim 2, Tanaka teaches wherein the controller: divides the displayable region identified into a plurality of displayable regions (0093 teaches the undisplayable region is divided into two. The controller will display the reduced image into two displayable regions); subjects the plurality of displayable regions to the reconstructing (0093 the original image may be reduced so as to fit the size of the two displayable region); and outputs the plurality of displayable regions obtained by being divided and reconstructed (0093 teaches the reduced image may be divided into two, and divided reduced images may be displayed in the divided displayable regions).
Per claim 7, see rejection of claim 1 where Tanaka teaches omitting the failure region from the display region. Tanaka as shown in rejection of claim 1 omitting or excludes the failure region from the displayable region. Tanka doesn’t exclude any other region, but only/the failure region.
Per claim 11, see rejection of claim 1 and further paragraph 0109 of Tanaka.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al (US 2011/0234574) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of de Paz (US 2012/0084676).
Per claim 3, as seen in rejection of claim 1-2, Tanaka teaches identifying a displayable region by omitting a failure region. Tanaka also disclosed reconstructing the image/display into the remaining displayable region. Tanaka also supports one or more display screens. See Tanaka paragraphs 0092, 215-217 and 0089-0092.
But Tanaka does not explicitly teach wherein when a first display screen and a second display screen among the one or more display screens are arranged side by side and performs the reconstructing to display the image in the first displayable region and the second displayable region that have been identified.
But, in an analogous art, de Paz teaches a dual screen application (Abstract). De Paz further teaches wherein when a first display screen and a second display screen among the one or more display screens are arranged side by side and performs the reconstructing to display the image in the first displayable region and the second displayable region that have been identified (a device with two screen side by side, primary screen and secondary screen, paragraph 0080. 0083 teaches the screens are juxtaposed. 0163 teaches simultaneous display on both screens. 0168 teaches single continuous image across both split across the two displays. 0146 teaches composite display output to multiple screens. So, Tanaka in 0091-0092 teaches displaying reconstructed content in the displayable region and de Paz in paragraph 0163, 0168 and 0146 teaches output/display on both screens. Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Tanaka’s failure region omission and reconstruction technique in the multi-screen device of De Paz because doing so provides concrete technical benefit of maintaining display continuity and usability when a failure affects part of the available display area, by reconstructing and presenting the image within the remaining displayable regions across the two screens rather than losing content or leaving unusable blank area.
Per claim 4, Tanka in view of De Paz in rejection of claim 1 and 3 teaches wherein when a first display screen and a second display screen among the one or more display screens are arranged side by side, the controller: identifies one displayable region obtained by omitting the failure region from; performs the reconstructing to display the image in the one displayable region identified; and outputs the one displayable region subjected to the reconstructing.
But, Tanka does not explicitly teach one display region that is a combination of a first display region on the first display screen and a second display region on the second display screen.
However, De Paz teaches one display region that is a combination of a first display region on the first display screen and a second display region on the second display screen (0080 teaches primary screen and secondary screen side by side. 0168 teaches a single continuous image across both touch sensitive display 110, 113…data…may be split and displayed partially on one…and…on the other. 0146 teaches a composite display may be created…output to the multiple screens. These teachings are relied upon to supply the composite/combined display region across the two screens as required by claim 4). Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Tanaka’s technique to De Paz’s two screen, because doing so provides the concrete technical benefit of preserving continuous full-image presentation across a multi-screen composite display despite a localized screen failure, by reconstructing the image to fit the remaining displayable region of the combined display area rather than interrupting or losing content.
Per claim 5, Tanaka teaches reconstructing an image to fit a displayable region that excludes a failed/undisplayable region, by reducing/compressing the image and displaying it in the displayable region, see paragraph 0091-0092. But, Tanaka doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the controller subjects the displayable region identified to the reconstructing while maintaining an aspect ratio before the reconstructing.
However, De Paz teaches wherein the controller subjects the displayable region identified to the reconstructing while maintaining an aspect ratio before the reconstructing (0160-0169 teaches system reconfigures displayed content across different display configuration (dual screens, portrait/landscape, and max modes spanning screens, including splitting/expanding content across screens. While De Paz does not teach the phrase “aspect ratio”, it teaches system managed reconfiguration of displayed content across varying display configuration and dimensions which supports the obviousness rationale for using aspect-ration preserving scaling when reconstructing for a reduced/omitted region). Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for Tanaka to use maintaining aspect ratio of De Paz. Because preserving aspect ratio provides the concrete technical benefit of avoiding distortion, stretching, and/or squashing of displayed image while adapting it to the reduced displayable region caused by the omitted failure region.
Per claim 6, Tanka in view of De Paz teaches wherein when a first display screen and a second display screen among the one or more display screens are arranged, the controller: identifies, based on the failure region information of the first display screen, a first displayable region obtained by omitting the failure region from a first display region on the first display screen; divides the first display region into the first displayable region and the failure region; performs the reconstructing; outputs, from the first display screen, an image corresponding to the first displayable region subjected to the reconstructing (see rejection of claim 1, 3 and 4). But, in those rejection, Tanka does not explicitly teach and outputs, from a second display region on the second display screen subjected to the reconstructing, an image corresponding to the failure region. However, De Paz teaches and outputs, from a second display region on the second display screen subjected to the reconstructing, an image corresponding to the failure region (0168-0169 teaches using dual screens to present a single continuous image across both displays, wherein the data/image may be split and displayed partially on one screen and partially on the other one. 0146 teaches that a frame buffer may be associated with multiple screens (composite display) and the system can direct a UI/image to a portion of the frame buffer mapped to a particular screen). Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for Tanaka to use De Paz’s split/composite display output, to achieve the predictable technical benefit of preserving missing visual information and continuity of presentation despite the failure region on the first screen, rather than discarding or permanently omitting that portion.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al (US 2011/0234574) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Jiang et al (US 2017/0269407).
Per claim 8, Tanka teaches that a failure detection unit detects a failure location/region and the controller displays information in a region other than the failure region, see paragraph 0113. Paragraph 0095 further teaches outputting a warning image when a failure is detected. But, Tanaka does not explicitly teach wherein when the failure region indicated by the failure region information acquired by the acquirer occupies a predetermined percentage or more of the display region, the controller outputs failure information indicating that the one or more display screens have failed.
In analogous art, Jiang teaches an LCD (abstract). Jiang further teaches , wherein when the failure region indicated by the failure region information acquired by the acquirer occupies a predetermined percentage or more of the display region, the controller outputs failure information indicating that the one or more display screens have failed (Jiang in paragraph 0047 teaches calculating a ratio of the area of each defective region to the area of the liquid crystal panel. 0017 teaches determining a defect severity level…and/or the quality level…depending on the ratio of the area of the defective region to the area of the liquid crystal panel. 0018 teaches informing the operator of the determined defect level and the quality level. 0059 teaches example threshold ratio exceeding 5% triggers transmitting defect info). Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Jiang’s defect area ratio/percentage evaluation into Tanaka’s failure-region handling so when the failure region occupies a predetermined percentage or more the display region, the controller outputs failure information indicating the screen have failed, because this provides a predictable technical benefit of using an objective, consistent criterion to classify severity of the failure and improving user/system decision making and safety signaling by escalating to a “failed” indication when the unusable area becomes sufficiently large.
Per claim 9, Tanka in view of Jiang in rejection of claim 8 teaches the controller outputs failure information indicating that the one or more display screens have failed. Also see paragraphs 0095, 0089-0091 and 0092-0094 of Tanaka that teaches a controller detects driver failure and determines a displayable region and outputting failure information warning. Jiang teaches determining defect/failure severity using a size/area metric, including defect area and/or a ratio relative to a panel area and then providing corresponding defect/quality information. In particular, Jiang teaches calculating an area of each defective area and calculating the ratio of the area of the defective area to the area of the liquid crystal panel and notifies the operator, see rejection of claim 8. Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tanaka’s failure handling display so when the displayable region becomes smaller than a predetermine size (i.e., falls below a minimum usable area), the controller outputs failure information indicating that the display screen have failed, because Jian teaches using area/size-based threshold to assess defect severity/quality and to output corresponding defect notification. The rationale would be providing a clear fail-state indication when the remaining displayable region is too small for reliable viewing/operation (safety-critical vehicle display use discussed by Tanaka), rather than merely continuing reduced display without an explicit “failed” indication.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lin et al (US 2016/0307544) Fig. 5-7
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMEED ALIZADA whose telephone number is (571)270-5907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 am until 5:30 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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/OMEED ALIZADA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686