DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
§ 112(f) interpretation despite the absence of “means”
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: “a generator” and “a renderer” in claims 1-2, and 6.
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 § 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 of this title, 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 1-2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka (JP 2000268158 A) in view of Keiji (JP 2006331339 A).
As per claim 1, Yoshioka teaches the claimed:
1. A display control system comprising:
in which a numerical value related to a display mode of the first GUI object is set as color information;
(Yoshioka (page 37, line 18-20): “The color is set by selecting a desired color sample from the color display area 153 displaying a more detailed color sample compared to 147, or by setting a numerical value in the color parameter setting area 155.”)
a renderer structured to generate an image of the third GUI object based on the data of the third GUI object; and
(Yoshioka (page 6, line 9-12): “the rendering object 44 as display control means receives parameter information … and performs display based on the parameter information.”)
a display controller structured to display the first GUI object in a mode based on the color information of the second GUI object included in the image of the third GUI object.
(Yoshioka (page 3, line 14-16): “a display control means for displaying information relating to the color set on the color setting screen in response to a user's operation input inputted via the input means on the color setting screen display button.”
Yoshioka (page 37, line 18-20): “The color is set by selecting a desired color sample from the color display area 153 displaying a more detailed color sample compared to 147, or by setting a numerical value in the color parameter setting area 155.”)
Yoshioka alone does not explicitly teach the remaining claim limitations.
However, Yoshioka in combination with Keiji teaches the claimed:
a generator structured to generate data of a third GUI object including a first GUI object and a second GUI object
(Keiji (page 4, line 25-29): “The layout data generation unit 109 generates layout data using the layout definition 102 and the model information 108. The preference calculation unit 110 selects a GUI component and a property candidate for performing layout adjustment according to the screen of the display device 111 in accordance with the preference value set in the layout data generated by the layout data generation unit 109.”
Keiji (page 4, line 31-32): “The layout definition 102 includes a GUI part unit 103 for setting GUI part information 104.”
Keiji (page 6, line 14-17): “The GUI component unit 103 holds information regarding each GUI component. In the example of FIG. 3, GUI part ID, GUI part type, GUI part name, and text that defines the display contents of the GUI part are set, and visibility, position, size, and guide are set as layout properties of various GUI parts.”
Keiji teaches the layout data generation unit that generates data with the layout definition, which incorporates the GUI component unit that determines and generates each GUI component, such as the different aspects of the GUI like other GUI components.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the layout data generation as taught by Keiji with the system of Yoshioka in order to determine the number of GUI objects to generate and how to organize and layout each of the components on a display.
As per claim 7, this claim is similar in scope to limitations recited in claim 1, and thus is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 2, Yoshioka teaches the claimed:
2. The display control system according to claim 1, wherein
the first GUI object is displayed by being combined with a predetermined image, and
the second GUI object is obtained by setting, as the color information, a numerical value related to a mode of combining the first GUI object with the predetermined image.
(Yoshioka (page 3, line 12-16): “a color setting screen display button for displaying a color setting screen for setting a color to be applied to an image to be edited is displayed on the display means. There is provided a display control means for displaying information relating to the color set on the color setting screen in response to a user's operation input inputted via the input means on the color setting screen display button.”
Yoshioka (page 37, line 18-20): “The color is set by selecting a desired color sample from the color display area 153 displaying a more detailed color sample compared to 147, or by setting a numerical value in the color parameter setting area.”
Yoshioka teaches the image to be edited, which corresponds to the predetermined image, since the image is what will be changed. The second GUI object is obtained by setting the color with a numerical value in the color parameter setting area.)
As per claim 6, Yoshioka and Keiji teach the claimed:
6. The display control system according to claim 1, wherein
the generator further generates layout information including a position of the second GUI object in the third GUI object, and
(Keiji (page 6, line 14-17): “The GUI component unit 103 holds information regarding each GUI component. In the example of FIG. 3, GUI part ID, GUI part type, GUI part name, and text that defines the display contents of the GUI part are set, and visibility, position, size, and guide are set as layout properties of various GUI parts.”
Keiji teaches the various GUI parts, which include multiple GUI objects, that are set out according to layout properties, such as their positions.)
the display controller extracts an image of the first GUI object and an image of the second GUI object from the image of the third GUI object based on the layout information.
(Keiji (page 12, line 24-27): “the layout data generation unit 109 extracts a GUI component for investigating whether or not the display is superimposed on another GUI component in the ascending order of the y coordinate regarding the GUI component in the layout data … This superimposition investigation is executed until it is determined in step ST202 that all GUI parts in the layout data have been extracted”.
Keiji teaches the layout data generation unit that extracts all GUI part and objects that are superimposed on another based on the layout data, indicating that the display can control the extraction of, for example, a first and second GUI object from a third GUI object.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the layout data generation as taught by Keiji with the system of Yoshioka in order to determine the number of GUI objects to generate and how to organize and layout each of the components on a display.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka in view of Keiji and in further view of Li (WO 2021174407 A1).
As per claim 3, Yoshioka and Keiji alone do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Yoshioka and Keiji in combination with Li teaches the claimed:
3. The display control system according to claim 1, wherein
the generator and the renderer are implemented in a first processor, and
(Li (page 4, line 3): “the first display controller is used to generate a first image using first data”
Li (page 13, line 21-22, 26): “the first display controller 101 may also include both a DSS and a GPU. … the GPU can be used for image rendering and drawing.”)
the display controller is implemented in a second processor having a safety requirement different from a safety requirement of the first processor.
Li (page 4, line 30-31): “the safety integrity level of the second display controller is higher than the safety integrity level of the first display controller.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the multiple safety integrity levels as taught by Li with the system of Yoshioka as modified by Keiji in order to create a balanced safety strategy, strengthen the ability to prevent incidents, and form a multi-layered projection instead of just relying on one layer.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka in view of Keiji and in further view of Peter (US 20210103455 A1) and Davidovich (US 11654926 B2).
As per claim 4, Yoshioka and Keiji alone do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Yoshioka and Keiji in combination with Peter and Davidovich teaches the claimed:
4. The display control system according to claim 1, wherein
the renderer and the display controller are implemented in a single processor,
(Peter [0050]: “The system 30 comprises a plurality of guest systems 32 , 34 , 36 , for example guest operating systems, each running on a separate partition. The guest systems 32 , 34 , 36 are running via a virtualization layer 38 , for example a microkernel or a hypervisor, on the at least one processor”
Peter [0062-0063]: “The second guest system 34 is adapted to run a first module … the first module 50 is adapted to prepare or render at least one display frame to be sent to a display. … Further, the second guest system, in particular the first module 50, is adapted to write the address and properties of the prepared display frame into suiting registers of the display controller.”)
the single processor includes a first operating system (OS) on which the renderer operates and a second OS on which the display controller operates, and
(Peter [0008]: “by the first guest system, the at least one portion of the at least one display frame from the data output memory, wherein the method in particular includes determining the location of the display frame in the data output memory … the second guest system, to a graphic controller the at least one display frame to be sent, and—rendering, by the graphic controller, the at least one display frame to be sent to the at least one display”.)
the second OS has a safety requirement different from a safety requirement of the first OS.
(Davidovich (col 15, line 48-51): “The one or more safety mechanisms may be of a first safety level (for example ASIL-B compliant) that is higher than a second safety level (for example ASIL QM) of the Linux OS.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the guest systems as taught by Peter with the system of Yoshioka as modified by Keiji in order to delegate tasks to their own operating systems to focus on one specific task and become more efficient in that area. Also to use the multiple safety levels as taught by Davidovich in order to create a balanced safety strategy, strengthen the ability to prevent incidents, and form a multi-layered projection instead of just relying on one layer.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka in view of Keiji and in further view of Peter (US 20210103455 A1) and of Atsushi (KR 10-0504619 B1).
As per claim 5, Yoshioka and Keiji alone do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Yoshioka and Keiji in combination with Peter and Atsushi teaches the claimed:
5. The display control system according to claim 1, wherein
the generator and the renderer are implemented in a processor of an information device mounted on a vehicle, and
(Peter [0043]: “The display 13 is provided for an instrument cluster of a vehicle, in particular an automotive vehicle. The display 13 is for example an active or passive electronic display. For example, the display 13 displays a plurality of conditions of the vehicle or the engine.”
Peter [0008]: “the first guest system, the information about a read at least one portion of the at least one display frame, includes: obtaining from a display data checking hardware module at least one result about a check, performed by the display data checking hardware module, whether at least one portion of the at least one display frame rendered by the graphic controller and read by the display data checking hardware module includes the information sent to the second operating system is correctly generated in the display frame based on the at least one portion”
Peter teaches the display that is provided for a vehicle, displaying the condition of the vehicle, indicating that it is an information device.)
the display controller is implemented in a processor of a meter device mounted on the vehicle.
(Atsushi (page 19, line 15-19): “the vehicle meter device 60 (refer to FIG. 3) displays the vehicle speed when the vehicle is running, and switches to display information different from the vehicle speed such as a clock display when the vehicle is stopped. The vehicle stop state is divided by case according to the vehicle state when the vehicle stop is detected, and the display information can be changed by dividing by case.”
Atsushi teaches the vehicle meter device that changes the displays depending on if the vehicle is in motion or not, this is an example of a display controller implemented in a processor on the vehicle.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the guest systems as taught by Peter with the system of Yoshioka as modified by Keiji in order to delegate tasks to their own operating systems to focus on one specific task and become more efficient in that area. Also to use the vehicle meter device as taught by Atsushi in order to change the display of the vehicle’s meter screen depending on the movement of the vehicle to provide real time information to the user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA SUO whose telephone number is (571) 272-8387. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-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, Daniel Hajnik can be reached on (571) 272-7642. 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.
/JOSHUA SUO/Examiner, Art Unit 2616
/DANIEL F HAJNIK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights