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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 11-12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEHOMME (No. US-20190286407-A1 “Lehomme”) in view of OBATA (No. JP-2020177058-A “Obata”) and in further view of RELANGE (No. US-20240094867-A1 “Relange”).
Regarding claim 1, Lehomme teaches “determining a first verification value of the to-be-verified icon image;” (compute a region check sum CRC2 for the region of interest; Para 0036);
“determining a second verification value of the target icon image; and” (compute an expected region check sum .... Alternatively, the expected region check sum can be determined ahead of time and stored; Para 0037);
“verifying, based on the first verification value and the second verification value, a display status of the to-be-verified icon image currently displayed on the dashboard.” (compares the region check sum CRC2 to the expected region check sum to confirm that the at least one display assembly 100 correctly displays the plurality of safety telltales; Para 0037);
Lehomme discloses CRC2 which is a check value that is calculated from the displayed region that contains safety telltale. The expected check sum corresponds to the claimed second verification value. The CRC2 with the expected check sum together help determine whether the display is correct which corresponds to the claimed subject matter of display status of the to-be-verified icon image.
While Lehomme fails to teach “A verification method for an icon image of a dashboard, comprising: determining a to-be-verified icon image from an image currently displayed on the dashboard;” and “determining, from at least one stored icon image of the dashboard, a target icon image corresponding to the to-be-verified icon image”.
Obata teaches “determining a to-be-verified icon image from an image currently displayed on the dashboard;” (The icon image cutting unit 140 cuts out the icon image data D4 from the combined image data; Pg.3, Para 0017);
“determining, from at least one stored icon image of the dashboard, a target icon image corresponding to the to-be-verified icon image;” (the correct answer icon data storage unit 170 stores the correct answer icon image data related to the plurality of types of warning lights correspondingly... the correct answer icon image data for the reference corresponding to the icon image; Pg.3, Para 0019);
Obata discloses icons displayed and stored on a vehicle panel like a dashboard, that renders the panel image and cuts out the icon that needs to be checked which showcase the to be verified icon image. Obata also discloses a method of determining an icon displayed which corresponds to the verification method of an icon. Though it is not utilized in teaching the claimed subject matter of the verification method.
While Lehomme and Obata fail to teach “A verification method for an icon image of a dashboard, comprising”.
Relange teaches “A verification method for an icon image of a dashboard, comprising:” (methods of ... validation; Para 0039);
Lehomme, Obata and Relange are analogous art as they are related to a verification method and Icon image processing.
The motivation for the above is to have accurate verification of icon image for better display of icon on vehicle dashboard.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Lehomme by determining a to-be-verified icon image from an image currently displayed on the dashboard and determining, from at least one stored icon image of the dashboard, a target icon image corresponding to the to-be-verified icon image as taught by Obata and by a verification method for an icon image of a dashboard as taught by Relange.
Regarding claim 5, while Lehomme fails to teach the limitations of claim 5, Obata teaches “The verification method according to claim 1, wherein the determining a second verification value of the target icon image comprises:
reading the second verification value, which is pre-stored, of the target icon image; or” (The CRC generated from the image data of the correct icon is compared with the CRC generated from the image data of the icon after the drawing process; Pg.1, Para 0004); (storage means for storing the reference image data of the icon; Pg.1, Para 0007);
“determining the second verification value of the target icon image in a verification manner in accordance with a verification manner of determining the first verification value.” (The CRC generated from the image data of the correct icon is compared with the CRC generated from the image data of the icon after the drawing process; Pg.1, Para 0004);
Obata discloses CRC which can correspond to the verification value associated with the correct icon and compares it with the verification value generated form the displayed/drawn icon. Obata also discloses storing the correct icon data. The CRC operation is applied to the correct icon and to the drawn icon. In combination with Lehomme that teaches getting a region check sum CRC2 that applies to getting a verification value, Obata also teaches a CRC that is stored or that is the same method of determining a verification value.
The motivation for the above is to have accurate determination of verification values for accurate verification of icon.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Lehomme by reading the second verification value, which is pre-stored, of the target icon image or determining the second verification value of the target icon image in a verification manner in accordance with a verification manner of determining the first verification value as taught by Obata.
Regarding claim 6, while Lehomme fails to teach the limitations of claim 6, Obata teaches “The verification method according to claim 1, wherein the verifying, based on the first verification value and the second verification value, a display status of the to-be- verified icon image currently displayed on the dashboard comprises:
determining an absolute deviation value between the first verification value and the second verification value; and” (such as the sum of squares of pixel value differences (SSD) and the sum of absolute values of pixel value differences (SAD); Pg.4, Para 0023);
“verifying, based on a magnitude relationship between the absolute deviation value and a preset threshold, the display status of the to-be-verified icon image currently displayed on the dashboard.” (The comparison unit 190 compares the output value from the correlation calculation unit 180 with the determination threshold value, and if the output value of the correlation calculation is equal to or greater than the threshold value, determines that the image data of the cut out icon is correct. On the other hand, if the output value is less than the threshold value, it is determined that the image data of the cut out icon is out of order; Pg.3, Para 0021);
Obata discloses sum of absolute differences which is an alternative to image comparison calculation. SAD is based on absolute deviations between corresponding values of the displayed and reference images. Obata also discloses comparing the calculated verification result with a predetermined threshold and determining the correct display based on the relationship. Combined with the SAD calculation, this teaches the claimed subject matter.
The motivation for the above is to accurate verification of values and calculation of verification values for the verification values for better display of icon on dashboard.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Lehomme by determining an absolute deviation value between the first verification value and the second verification value and “verifying, based on a magnitude relationship between the absolute deviation value and a preset threshold, the display status of the to-be-verified icon image currently displayed on the dashboard as taught by Obata.
Regarding claim 11, while Lehomme and Obata fail to teach the limitation, Relange teaches “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium, on which a computer program is stored, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to implement a verification method for an icon image of a dashboard, wherein the verification method comprises:” (stored information include computer-useable instructions, data structures, program modules .... non-transitory computer readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to carry out operations; Para 0028); (methods of ... validation; Para 0039);
Claim 11 is directed to non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the effect processing method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, while Lehomme and Obata fail to teach the limitation, Relange teaches “An electronic device comprising:” (electronic device; Para 0061);
“a processor; and
a memory configured for storing instructions executable by the processor, wherein
the processor is configured for reading the executable instructions from the memory and executing the instructions to implement a verification method for an icon image of a dashboard, wherein the verification method comprises:” (be stored in the memory in a manner that restricts access by the processor; Para 0054); non-transitory computer readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to carry out operations; Para 0028); (methods of ... validation; Para 0039);
Claim 12 is directed to an electronic device and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the effect processing method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 1.
Claim 17 is directed to an electronic device and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the effect processing method of claim 6. Therefore, claim 17 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 6.
Claim(s) 2-4, 8-10, 13-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEHOMME in view of OBATA and in further view of RELANGE in view of ANAND (No. US-20220067900-A1 “Anand”).
Regarding claim 2, while Lehomme, Obata and Relange fail to teach the limitations of claim 2, Anand teaches “The verification method according to claim 1, wherein the determining a first verification value of the to-be-verified icon image comprises:
determining a first preset area in the to-be-verified icon image; and” (the error detection circuit 150 sets an error detection area that contains the foreground image and is smaller than the display image GIN; Para 0040);
“verifying pixels in the first preset area to determine the first verification value.” (for each of the channels .... the number of pixels having the value indicated by each of the bins is counted in the error detection area; Para 0087); (The error detection circuit 150 determines an indicator representing whether the foreground image is properly displayed in the error detection area; Para 0040);
Anand discloses detection area contains a foreground image which corresponds with a preset verification area containing a displayed icon. Anand also discloses analyzing pixels in the detection area to calculate a numerical indicator. This pixel analysis produces the claimed verification value. The indicator is a numerical measure of a correct display, and this corresponds to the claimed subject matter of verifying pixels in the area to then determine a verification value.
Lehomme, Obata, Relange and Anand are analogous art as they are related to verification methods and icon image display.
The motivation for the above is to have accurate detection of area of image for accurate verification and better display of icon.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Lehomme, Obata and Relange by determining a first preset area in the to-be-verified icon image and verifying pixels in the first preset area to determine the first verification value as taught by Anand.
Regarding claim 3, while Lehomme and Obata fail to teach, Relange further teaches “The verification method according to claim 2, wherein the determining a first preset area in the to-be-verified icon image comprises:
reading first position coordinates of a pre-stored icon element in the to-be-verified icon image;” (various validation criteria validation criteria may be stored... Validation criteria may not only validate the size and shape of the icons but coordinate locations as well as relative distances between the icons; Para 0044);
“identifying, from the to-be-verified icon image, an area corresponding to the icon element indicated by the first position coordinates; and” (the edge detection algorithms compare areas of digital instrument panel 202 such as pixels or elements of the display and provide a likelihood that each area is either part of the displayed graphic or part of the background; Para 0034);
“determining the first preset area from the area corresponding to the icon element.” (when detecting the shape from the background in the selected area comprising the entire icon; Para 0041);
Relange discloses verification criteria stored, including icon coordinate location. The stored information is associated with known icons. Relange also discloses display areas of the icon and how the area or region corresponds to the icon element of the claimed subject matter. The validation is performed on the area of the icon which teaches the claimed subject matter of determining the claimed preset verification region form icon element. In combination with Lehomme and Obata, this would allow the verification process to analyze the icon region because the coordinate locations constitute icon validation criteria and the area comprising the icon can be selected and analyzed.
Regarding claim 4, while Lehomme, Obata and Relange fail to teach the limitations of claim 4, Anand teaches “The verification method according to claim 2, wherein the determining a first preset area in the to-be-verified icon image comprises:
determining transparency information of pixels of the target icon image;” (foreground and background of the icon image are separated from each other and blended with the dashboard image based on a parameter alpha.; Para 0146);
“determining, from the pixels of the target icon image, a plurality of second pixels whose transparency information conforms to a preset condition;” (The foreground of the icon image is the icon portion of the icon image. .... formed of pixels of a mask image MSB that have the bit of “1”. The background of the icon image is the non-icon portion of the icon image. .... formed of the mask image MSB that has the bit of “0”; Para 0146);
“determining second position coordinates of the plurality of second pixels in the target icon image; and” (The parameter IRef(x, y) represents the pixel in the position (x, y) of the brightness channel of the reference image; Para 0152);
“determining, from the to-be-verified icon image, the first preset area indicated by third position coordinates corresponding to the second position coordinates in the target icon image.” (the pixels in a portion of the display image that is the portion where no reference pixels exist are deleted. The deletion corresponds to reference foreground masking; Para 0132);
Anand discloses Alpha which is the conventional transparency parameter. Anand discloses how alpha information distinguishes how foreground pixels and background pixels are blended into the dashboard. This corresponds to the transparency of the icon image. Anand also discloses using binary mask associated with alpha blended icon image. Selecting the mask at 1 corresponds to selecting pixels at a predetermined transparency condition which teaches the claimed subject matter.
The motivation for the above is to have accurate coordinates and information of icon image for better display of icon image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Lehomme, Obata and Relange by determining transparency information of pixels of the target icon image, determining, from the pixels of the target icon image, a plurality of second pixels whose transparency information conforms to a preset condition, determining second position coordinates of the plurality of second pixels in the target icon image and determining, from the to-be-verified icon image, the first preset area indicated by third position coordinates corresponding to the second position coordinates in the target icon image as taught by Anand.
Regarding claim 8, Obata further teaches “The verification method according to claim 2, wherein the verifying, based on the first verification value and the second verification value, a display status of the to-be- verified icon image currently displayed on the dashboard comprises:
determining an absolute deviation value between the first verification value and the second verification value; and” (such as the sum of squares of pixel value differences (SSD) and the sum of absolute values of pixel value differences (SAD); Pg.4, Para 0023);
“verifying, based on a magnitude relationship between the absolute deviation value and a preset threshold, the display status of the to-be-verified icon image currently displayed on the dashboard.” (The comparison unit 190 compares the output value from the correlation calculation unit 180 with the determination threshold value, and if the output value of the correlation calculation is equal to or greater than the threshold value, determines that the image data of the cut out icon is correct. On the other hand, if the output value is less than the threshold value, it is determined that the image data of the cut out icon is out of order; Pg.3, Para 0021);
Obata discloses sum of absolute differences which is an alternative to image comparison calculation. SAD is based on absolute deviations between corresponding values of the displayed and reference images. Obata also discloses comparing the calculated verification result with a predetermined threshold and determining the correct display based on the relationship. Combined with the SAD calculation, this teaches the claimed subject matter.
The motivation for the above is to accurate verification of values and calculation of verification values for the verification values for better display of icon on dashboard.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Lehomme by determining an absolute deviation value between the first verification value and the second verification value and “verifying, based on a magnitude relationship between the absolute deviation value and a preset threshold, the display status of the to-be-verified icon image currently displayed on the dashboard as taught by Obata.
Regarding claim 9, Obata further teaches “The verification method according to claim 3, wherein the verifying, based on the first verification value and the second verification value, a display status of the to-be- verified icon image currently displayed on the dashboard comprises:
determining an absolute deviation value between the first verification value and the second verification value; and” (such as the sum of squares of pixel value differences (SSD) and the sum of absolute values of pixel value differences (SAD); Pg.4, Para 0023);
“verifying, based on a magnitude relationship between the absolute deviation value and a preset threshold, the display status of the to-be-verified icon image currently displayed on the dashboard.” (The comparison unit 190 compares the output value from the correlation calculation unit 180 with the determination threshold value, and if the output value of the correlation calculation is equal to or greater than the threshold value, determines that the image data of the cut out icon is correct. On the other hand, if the output value is less than the threshold value, it is determined that the image data of the cut out icon is out of order; Pg.3, Para 0021);
Obata discloses sum of absolute differences which is an alternative to image comparison calculation. SAD is based on absolute deviations between corresponding values of the displayed and reference images. Obata also discloses comparing the calculated verification result with a predetermined threshold and determining the correct display based on the relationship. Combined with the SAD calculation, this teaches the claimed subject matter.
The motivation for the above is to accurate verification of values and calculation of verification values for the verification values for better display of icon on dashboard.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Lehomme by determining an absolute deviation value between the first verification value and the second verification value and “verifying, based on a magnitude relationship between the absolute deviation value and a preset threshold, the display status of the to-be-verified icon image currently displayed on the dashboard as taught by Obata.
Regarding claim 10, Obata further teaches “The verification method according to claim 4, wherein the verifying, based on the first verification value and the second verification value, a display status of the to-be- verified icon image currently displayed on the dashboard comprises:
determining an absolute deviation value between the first verification value and the second verification value; and” (such as the sum of squares of pixel value differences (SSD) and the sum of absolute values of pixel value differences (SAD); Pg.4, Para 0023);
“verifying, based on a magnitude relationship between the absolute deviation value and a preset threshold, the display status of the to-be-verified icon image currently displayed on the dashboard.” (The comparison unit 190 compares the output value from the correlation calculation unit 180 with the determination threshold value, and if the output value of the correlation calculation is equal to or greater than the threshold value, determines that the image data of the cut out icon is correct. On the other hand, if the output value is less than the threshold value, it is determined that the image data of the cut out icon is out of order; Pg.3, Para 0021);
Obata discloses sum of absolute differences which is an alternative to image comparison calculation. SAD is based on absolute deviations between corresponding values of the displayed and reference images. Obata also discloses comparing the calculated verification result with a predetermined threshold and determining the correct display based on the relationship. Combined with the SAD calculation, this teaches the claimed subject matter.
The motivation for the above is to accurate verification of values and calculation of verification values for the verification values for better display of icon on dashboard.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Lehomme by determining an absolute deviation value between the first verification value and the second verification value and “verifying, based on a magnitude relationship between the absolute deviation value and a preset threshold, the display status of the to-be-verified icon image currently displayed on the dashboard as taught by Obata.
Claim 13 is directed to an electronic device and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the effect processing method of claim 2. Therefore, claim 13 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 2.
Claim 14 is directed to an electronic device and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the effect processing method of claim 3. Therefore, claim 14 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 3.
Claim 15 is directed to an electronic device and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the effect processing method of claim 4. Therefore, claim 15 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 4.
Claim 19 is directed to an electronic device and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the effect processing method of claim 8. Therefore, claim 19 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 8.
Claim 20 is directed to an electronic device and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the effect processing method of claim 9. Therefore, claim 20 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 9.
Claim(s) 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEHOMME in view of OBATA and in further view of RELANGE in view of JAHNS (No. US-20210237576-A1 “Jahns”).
Regarding claim 7, while Lehomme, Obata and Relange fail to teach the limitations of claim 7, Jahns teaches “The verification method according to claim 6, wherein the verification method further comprises:
generating, based on the display status, a prompt message corresponding to the to-be-verified icon image; and” (determined salience level may dictate display/presentation attributes of the popup notification; Para 0090); (various other command-level instructions 504 are possible and may be displayed in association with a popup notification; Para 0085);
“presenting, based on a message type of the prompt message, a prompt message corresponding to the display status of the to-be-verified icon image.” (the message/notification may be selected as the top IQ message 704 a, .... and then displayed as a popup notification 500 in the notification zone 212 in the instrument cluster 106 display; Para 0116);
Jahns discloses determining the dashboard icon has failed and supplying a message of notice to the display and presenting that notification on the display. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill to implement the notification system of Jahns with Lehomme, Obata and Relange such that a message of the display status of the verified icon and a corresponding warning/prompt message is generated, selected and displayed according to the classification level.
Lehomme, Obata, Relange and Jahns are analogous art as they are related to icon display and vehicle verification methods.
The motivation for the above is to have a message displayed of icon image for warning to user from vehicle dashboard.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Lehomme, Obata and Relange by generating, based on the display status, a prompt message corresponding to the to-be-verified icon image and presenting, based on a message type of the prompt message, a prompt message corresponding to the display status of the to-be-verified icon image as taught by Jahns.
Claim 18 is directed to an electronic device and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the effect processing method of claim 7. Therefore, claim 18 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN-117841672-A (Xianyu) – Discloses a verification method of indication icons. The verification method comprises the following steps: dividing the indication icon into a plurality of image blocks; acquiring image information of each image block; comparing the image information with preset image information; and judging whether the indication icon is normally displayed or not based on the comparison result.
WO-2024139668-A1 (Liu) – Discloses a display screen icon flickering identification method, which comprises the following steps: according to prior information displayed on a display screen, setting an icon expected value and an identification region of a display screen, and setting a region of interest.
CN-117879758-A (Li) – Discloses a vehicle indicator light icon verification method, device, equipment and storage medium, and belongs to the technical field of automobile indicator light display. The method comprises the steps of obtaining all icon results which can be displayed in a display screen in advance, determining a characteristic area of each icon according to a preset dividing rule, generating an area CRC check value according to the characteristic area, and combining the area CRC check value into a check value sequence which is used as a comparison for carrying out subsequent icon check.
CN-116954428-A (Zhao) – Discloses displaying and identifying a vehicle icon, wherein the method comprises the following steps: responding to a triggering event aiming at a preset function of a vehicle, and acquiring a display area picture corresponding to the preset function on an instrument panel of the vehicle; processing the display area picture according to a target binarization processing algorithm corresponding to the preset function to obtain a binarized image of the display area picture.
CN-118736541-A (Li Min-min) – Discloses an icon detection and processing method for a vehicle. The method includes: obtaining an image frame to be tested to be displayed via a display device of the vehicle, the image frame to be tested includes a graphic area corresponding to an indicator icon; obtaining display control information related to the indicator icon; and based on the display control information, performing a detection on the image frame to be tested regarding an abnormality in the drawing of the indicator icon.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIGITER D PROTAZI whose telephone number is (571)272-7995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5.
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, Said A Broome can be reached at 5712722931. 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.
/B.D.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2612
/Said Broome/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2612
Prosecution Insights