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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
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 1-18 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.
With specific reference to claims 1, 9 and 15, the claim recites obtaining a signal detected by a sensor and setting a threshold for recognition sensitivity of the sensor from a second value to a first value, wherein the first value is set a threshold when the user is not within the surroundings of the electronic device, wherein the second value is lower than the first value, identifying if the detected signal is higher than the second value, to determine that a user event contacting with the electronic device occurs and performs an operation. As recited, when the detected signal is higher than the threshold set to the second value, the user event contacting the electronic device occurs. However, the higher threshold value is the first value, which is set as the threshold when the user does not exist in the surroundings of the electronic device. Therefore, it is not clear how the user event contact with the electronic device occurs if the user does not exist in the surroundings of the electronic device. Based on the specification setting the threshold value of the sensor is based on identifying whether the user event of the electronic device is expected to occur when it is determined that the external device and the electronic device are close to each other. However, there is no discussion of the sensitivity being adjusted when the devices are further apart (see specification paragraphs 38-40). For these reasons the specification does not support the claimed limitations to provide clarity of the features as recited. Claims 2-8, 20-14, and 16-18 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim. The claims will be rejected on the merits as best understood by the examiner based on the disclosure of the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kosugi et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2020/0201401; hereinafter Kosugi).
With reference to claims 1, 9, and 15, Kosugi discloses an electronic device (1), a method of controlling an electronic device, and a non-transitory recording medium storing a computer program which includes a computer-readable code to perform a method of controlling an electronic device (1) (see paragraph 127-128; Figs. 1, 6) comprising:
an interface (see paragraphs 39, 49);
a sensor (130) (see paragraphs 35, 37; Fig. 6); and
a processor (300) (see paragraphs 49; Fig. 6) configured to:
obtain a signal detected through the sensor (130) (see paragraphs 37-38),
identify whether at least one of users or an external device exists in surroundings of the electronic device (see paragraphs 37-38; Figs. 1, 3-6),
based on identifying that the at least one of the users or the external device exists in surroundings of the electronic device, set a threshold for recognition sensitivity of the sensor from a first value to a second value (see paragraphs 46-48; Figs. 3, 5), the first value being set as the threshold when the at least one of the users or the external device does not exist in surroundings of the electronic device (leave detection mode; see paragraphs 46-48; Figs. 3-4), and the second value being lower than the first value (see paragraph 47; Fig. 3),
identify whether a strength of the detected signal is higher than the threshold set the second value (see paragraph 48; Figs. 3-6), and
based on identifying that the strength of the detected signal is higher than the set threshold (the detected signals falls within the second threshold; Fig. 5), identify that a user event contacting with the electronic device occurs (in teaching login; see paragraphs 87-88; Figs. 1, 5), and
perform an operation with the external device through the interface (in teaching normal operating state; see paragraphs 88-89; Figs. 5, 7).
With reference to claims 2 and 10, Kosugi disclose the electronic device according to claim 1 or 9, and further discloses wherein the sensor (130), while set to have a first recognition sensitivity, detects a signal that is more than the first value, and the sensor, while set to have a second recognition sensitivity higher than the first recognition sensitivity, detects a signal that is more than the second value lower than the first value (in teaching approach detection and leave detection; see paragraphs 43-44, 46-47; Figs. 1A-C, 3-5, 8-10).
With reference to claims 4 and 12, Kosugi disclose the electronic device according to claim 1 or 9, and further discloses wherein the processor identifies that the user event is expected to occur by identifying, based on surrounding situation information, that at least one of a user or the external device exists in surroundings of the electronic device (in teaching approach detection and thereby starting the BOOT process; see paragraphs 28-29; Figs. 1A-C).
With reference to claims 5 and 13, Kosugi disclose the electronic device according to claim 4 or 12, and further discloses wherein the processor acquires the surrounding situation information which indicates that the at least one of the user or the external device exists within a predefined distance from the electronic device (in teaching approach detection and thereby starting the BOOT process; see paragraphs 28-29; Figs. 1A-C).
With reference to claims 6 and 14, Kosugi disclose the electronic device according to claim 1 or 9, and further discloses wherein the sensor operates in a first operation mode and, provided the processor identifies that the user event is expected to occur, the processor controls the sensor to operate in a second operation mode in which power consumption is larger than that of the first operation mode (see paragraph 29; Figs. 1A-C).
With reference to claim 7, Kosugi disclose the electronic device according to claim 6, and further discloses wherein provided the processor identifies that the user event is unexpected to occur until a predefined time has passed while the sensor operates in the second operation mode, the processor controls the sensor to operate in the first operation mode (see paragraphs 27-29, 61-63; Figs. 1A-C).
With reference to claim 8, Kosugi disclose the electronic device according to claim 6, and further discloses wherein the processor identifies whether the user event which corresponds to at least one of a predefined user or external device is expected to occur (in teaching approach mode, and user authentication; see paragraphs 72; Figs. 1A) and, when the user event is expected to occur, adjusts the sensor to be to have a third recognition sensitivity which corresponds to the at least one of the predefined user or external device (in teaching usage of imaging unit for face or fingerprint authentication; see paragraph 72, 77; Fig. 6).
With reference to claim 16, Kosugi disclose the electronic device according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the surrounding situation indicates whether at least one of a user or the external device exists within a predefined distance (FoV1, FoV2) from the electronic device (see paragraphs 37-38; Figs. 3-5).
With reference to claim 17, Kosugi disclose the electronic device according to claim 16, and further discloses wherein the first surrounding situation (Figs. 1C, 4) indicates that the at least one of the user or the external device does not exist within the predefined distance (FoV2) from the electronic device (1) (in teaching leave detection mode; see paragraphs 43-44, 47; Figs. 5, 8-10); and the second surrounding situation (Figs. 1B, 5) indicates that the at least one of the user or the external device exists within the predefined distance (FoV2) of the electronic device (see paragraphs 62-63; Figs. 5, 7-10).
With reference to claim 18, Kosugi disclose the electronic device according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the user event is a tap motion where the user contacts with the electronic device (in teaching the usage of a touch pad or keyboard for user input; see paragraph 39; Fig. 2).
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.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosugi as applied to claim 1 or 9 above, and further in view of Morimoto et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2009/0284463; hereinafter Morimoto).
With reference to claims 3 and 11 Kosugi disclose the electronic device and method according to claim 1 or 9, however fails to disclose a vibration characteristic of the sensor as recited.
Morimoto discloses an electronic device (see paragraphs 24-25; Figs. 1-2) comprising a sensor (11) (see paragraph 25; Figs. 1-2), wherein the sensor detects a vibration characteristic of the signal and the processor identifies the user event based on the detected vibration characteristic (see paragraphs 25, 36; Fig. 3).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the usage of a vibration sensor as an alternative arrangement in a device similar to that which is taught by Morimoto to be carried out in a system similar to that which is taught by Kosugi as well known in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With reference to claims 1, 9, and 15, the applicant argues that Kosugi fails to disclose sensor sensitivity based on the surrounding situation of the electronic device as recited. The claims as explained above is not clear on the set thresholds as recited. Further the examiner finds that Kosugi discloses the usage of a sensor and a processor capable of adjusting the detection range (i.e. sensitivity) of the sensor based on the user’s location to the electronic device. The sensor is capable of detecting a person present in the neighborhood of the electronic device (see paragraphs 29, 37). Kosugi further discloses the detection range of the sensor is set between different ranges in a case where the person leaves from the electronic device and a case where the approach of the person is detected. In the leave detection mode the sensor detection range is set to a wide range, and in the approach mode the detection range is set to a narrow range. Therefore the examiner finds that Kosugi discloses identify whether at least the user exists in the surroundings of the electronic device, and based thereon set a threshold for recognition sensitivity of the sensor from a first value to a second value as recited (see paragraphs 41-48; Figs. 3-5). Allowing for such a change in the recognition sensitivity of the sensor as taught by Kosugi to thereby reduce the power consumption of the sensor (see Kosugi; paragraph 48). For these reasons the examiner finds that Kosugi discloses the invention as recited.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALECIA DIANE ENGLISH whose telephone number is (571)270-1595. The examiner can normally be reached M0n.-Fri. 7:00am-3:00am.
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, William Boddie can be reached on 571-272-0666. 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.
/ADE/Examiner, Art Unit 2625 /WILLIAM BODDIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2625