DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Oath/Declaration
3. The receipt of Oath/Declaration is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/22/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
5. The drawing(s) filed on 03/22/2023 are objected to because Fig. 6, Touch Panel-Second State is described as “TOUCH PANEL - ON (PANEL OFF). This is ambiguous and confusing.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claim 10 is 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.
8. Claim 10 recites in part:
“transition the electronic apparatus from a first power-consumption mode to a second power-consumption mode when an observation target is detected in the fifth detection area, power consumption being larger in the second power-consumption mode than in the first power-consumption mode, and
transition the electronic apparatus to a third power-consumption mode when the observation target is no longer detected in the fourth detection area after the electronic apparatus enters the second power-consumption mode and the observation target is detected in the fourth detection area, the power consumption being smaller in the third power- consumption mode than in the second power-consumption mode.”
For purpose of examination the examiner will interpret the occurrence of ‘fifth detection area’ in line 9, to be ‘fourth detection area’.
For purpose of examination the examiner will interpret the occurrence of ‘fourth detection area’ in line 15, to be ‘fifth detection area’.
Appropriate correction is required.
Status of Claims
9. Claims 1-11 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
13. 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.
14. Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masumoto et al. (US 2014/0064774) in view of Ono et al. (US 2015/0006927) and further in view of Baba (2015/0103365).
Regarding Claim 1:
Masumoto discloses an electronic apparatus (Masumoto: Fig. 1 ‘image forming apparatus 1’) comprising:
a human detector (Masumoto: Fig. 1 ‘human body detecting device 200’) configured to detect presence of an observation target; and
a processor (Masumoto: Fig. 2 ‘controller 101’ [0098-0099]),
wherein a detection area of the human detector (Masumoto: Fig. 16 ‘human body detection space 2050’ [0163]) includes a first detection area (Masumoto: Fig. 16 ‘second detecting area 2050c serving to detect if a user takes any action, near the main body 10 of the image forming apparatus 1’ [0160]), a second detection area located farther from the human detector than the first detection area is (Masumoto: Fig. 16 ‘detecting area 2050b’ [0160]), and a third detection area (Masumoto: Fig. 16 ‘detecting area 2050a’ [0160])
wherein the processor is configured to:
transition the electronic apparatus from a first power-consumption mode to a second power-consumption mode when an observation target is detected in the third detection area (Masumoto: Fig. 5 ‘teaches placing the apparatus in power saving mode to cut off power to functional blocks, and switching the power supply mode from power saving mode to normal operation mode when detecting that a person moves toward the apparatus’ [0118]), power consumption being larger in the second power-consumption mode than in the first power-consumption mode (Masumoto: ‘further teaches that the sub-level power saving mode requires less power than normal operation mode but more than power saving mode’ [0127]),
transition the electronic apparatus to a third power-consumption mode when the observation target is detected in the first detection area (Masumoto: ‘teaches lowering a power saving level (selecting among multiple power supply modes) as the user enters closer detecting areas (e.g., first detecting areas in out rows), thereby increasing supplied power as the user approaches’ [0186-0187]), the power consumption being larger in the third power-consumption mode than in the second power-consumption mode (Masumoto: ‘restoring power supply to the engine controller block 101 and the operation panel 102’ [0186-0187]), and
transition the electronic apparatus to a (Masumoto: Fig. 6 ‘teaches multiple power supply modes including power saving mode, and returning from higher power states to lower power states based on the detection of the user, e.g., when a person moves away from the image forming apparatus’ [0130-0133]).
Masumoto does not expressly disclose a third detection area that includes the second detection area and a region located farther from the human detector than the second detection area is.
Ono discloses a third detection area that includes the second detection area and a region located farther from the human detector than the second detection area is (Ono: ‘expressly teaches a third detection area (approach sensing area R1) that generally includes a second detection area (sensing area F), thereby teaching a third detection area that includes the second detection area and an additional region outside the second detection area (the remainder of R1 outside F)’ [0029-0030]. Ono further teaches a first detection area (standstill sensing area R2) that is closer than R1 based on distance definitions. [0032;0039]).
Masumoto in view of Ono are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing; e.g., both disclose methods of shifting the power modes in an MFP based on the distance of a user who is proximate to the MFP.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose a third detection area that includes the second detection area and a region located farther from the human detector than the second detection area is. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to achieve a more distinct readiness and power conservation as a user approaches. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Masumoto with Ono to obtain the invention as specified.
The proposed combination of Masumoto in vie of Ono do not expressly disclose transition the electronic apparatus to a fourth power-consumption mode when the observation target is no longer detected in the first detection area or in the second detection area after the electronic apparatus enters the third power-consumption mode, the power consumption being smaller in the fourth power-consumption mode than in the third power-consumption mode.
Baba discloses transition the electronic apparatus to a fourth power-consumption mode when the observation target is no longer detected in the first detection area or in the second detection area after the electronic apparatus enters the third power-consumption mode, the power consumption being smaller in the fourth power-consumption mode than in the third power-consumption mode (Baba: Fig. 11 flowchart teaches a transition of power states with four distinct power levels, L1-L4 with power only supplied to the parts of the MFP that are necessary based on the user’s position. For example, step S106 discloses that if it is determined that the moving object is expected to approach the apparatus that power supply goes from power Level 2, wherein we to power Level 3 wherein power is supplied to the main controller and the UI touch panel [0123, 0130]; Baba further teaches a staged downshift during approach control, including ceasing power supply to the UI touch panel when the user is approaching but not engaging, thereby reducing power from a higher state to a lower state. [0176].
Accordingly, transitioning from the higher-powered state (third mode) to a lower powered state (fourth mode) when the user is no longer detected in nearer areas is taught by Masumoto in view of Ono, and further in view of Baba, and are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing; e.g., all disclose methods of shifting the power modes in an MFP based on the distance of a user who is proximate to the MFP.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose transition the electronic apparatus to a fourth power-consumption mode when the observation target is no longer detected in the first detection area or in the second detection area after the electronic apparatus enters the third power-consumption mode, the power consumption being smaller in the fourth power-consumption mode than in the third power-consumption mode. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to improve responsiveness when a user is in the closest region and to avoid unnecessary power consumption when the user is not engaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Masumoto, Ono & Baba to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3:
The proposed combination of Masumoto, Ono & Baba disclose the electronic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein power consumption in the fourth power-consumption mode is the same as power consumption in the first power-consumption mode (Masumoto: ‘teaches a power saving mode and transitioning among modes including returning to a lower-power saving state, thus implementing both the first and the fourth modes as the same power saving mode’ [0118; 0127]).
Regarding Claim 5:
The proposed combination of Masumoto, Ono & Baba further disclose the electronic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: change a size of the second detection area in accordance with a detail of an operation performed on the electronic apparatus while the electronic apparatus is in the third power-consumption mode (Ono: ‘teaches that control logic may vary a sensing area dimension (e.g., varying the length of a sensing area) based on device context, supporting dynamic adjustment of detection area size’; ‘the modifying unit 117 modifies the approach sensing area R1 or the standstill sensing area R2 by rewriting the sensing area data Da in response to the instruction received by the receiving unit 116’ [0095; 0103; [0026]]).
Masumoto, Ono, & Baba are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing; e.g., all disclose methods of shifting the power modes in an MFP based on the distance of a user who is proximate to the MFP.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change a size of the second detection area in accordance with a detail of an operation performed on the electronic apparatus while the electronic apparatus is in the third power-consumption mode. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to modify the width and depth of the standstill sensing area to account for a user who is still in the area around the MFP such as a user who is using peripheral device 20 such as a sheet discharging area as disclosed by Ono. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Masumoto, Ono, & Baba to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regarding Claim 6:
The proposed combination of Masumoto, Ono & Baba further disclose the electronic apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to: set the size of the second detection area to a larger value when an operation of outputting a sheet from the electronic apparatus has been performed than when an operation other than the operation of outputting a sheet from the electronic apparatus has been performed (Ono: ‘teaches that control logic may vary a sensing area dimension (e.g., varying the length of a sensing area) based on device context, supporting dynamic adjustment of detection area size’; ‘the modifying unit 117 modifies the approach sensing area R1 or the standstill sensing area R2 by rewriting the sensing area data Da in response to the instruction received by the receiving unit 116’ [0095; 0103; [0026]]).
Masumoto, Ono, & Baba are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing; e.g., all disclose methods of shifting the power modes in an MFP based on the distance of a user who is proximate to the MFP.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the size of the second detection area to a larger value when an operation of outputting a sheet from the electronic apparatus has been performed than when an operation other than the operation of outputting a sheet from the electronic apparatus has been performed. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to modify the width and depth of the standstill sensing area to account for a user who is still in the area around the MFP such as a user who is using peripheral device 20 such as a sheet discharging area as disclosed by Ono. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Masumoto, Ono, & Baba to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7:
The proposed combination of Masumoto, Ono & Baba further disclose the electronic apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to: after the size of the second detection area is changed and the operation performed on the electronic apparatus is finished, reset the size of the second detection area to a value before the change in the size of the second detection area (Ono: ‘teaches that control logic may vary a sensing area dimension (e.g., varying the length of a sensing area) based on device context, supporting dynamic adjustment of detection area size’; ‘the modifying unit 117 modifies the approach sensing area R1 or the standstill sensing area R2 by rewriting the sensing area data Da in response to the instruction received by the receiving unit 116’ [0095; 0103; [0026]]).
Masumoto, Ono, & Baba are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing; e.g., all disclose methods of shifting the power modes in an MFP based on the distance of a user who is proximate to the MFP.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to after the size of the second detection area is changed and the operation performed on the electronic apparatus is finished, reset the size of the second detection area to a value before the change in the size of the second detection area. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to modify the width and depth of the standstill sensing area to account for a user who is still in the area around the MFP such as a user who is using peripheral device 20 such as a sheet discharging area as disclosed by Ono. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Masumoto, Ono, & Baba to obtain the invention as specified in claim.
Regarding Claim 10:
Masumoto discloses an electronic apparatus (Masumoto: Fig. 1 ‘image forming apparatus 1’) comprising:
a human detector (Masumoto: Fig. 1 ‘human body detecting device 200’) configured to detect presence of an observation target; and
a processor (Masumoto: Fig. 2 ‘controller 101’ [0098-0099]),
wherein a detection area of the human detector (Masumoto: Fig. 16 ‘human body detection space 2050’ [0163]) includes a fourth detection area (Masumoto: e.g., Fig. 16 ‘detecting area 2050b’ [0160]) and a fifth detection area (Masumoto: Fig. 16 ‘detecting area 2050a’ [0160])
wherein the processor is configured to:
transition the electronic apparatus from a first power-consumption mode to a second power-consumption mode when an observation target is detected in the fourth detection area (Masumoto: Fig. 5 ‘teaches placing the apparatus in power saving mode to cut off power to functional blocks, and switching the power supply mode from power saving mode to normal operation mode when detecting that a person moves toward the apparatus’ [0118]), power consumption being larger in the second power-consumption mode than in the first power-consumption mode (Masumoto: ‘further teaches that the sub-level power saving mode requires less power than normal operation mode but more than power saving mode’ [0127]), and
transition the electronic apparatus to a in the fifth detection area detection area, the power consumption being smaller in the (Masumoto: Fig. 6 ‘teaches multiple power supply modes including power saving mode, and returning from higher power states to lower power states based on the detection of the user, e.g., when a person moves away from the image forming apparatus’ [0130-0133]).
Masumoto does not expressly disclose a fifth detection area that includes the fourth detection area and a region located farther from the human detector than the fourth detection area is.
Ono discloses a fifth detection area that includes the fourth detection area and a region located farther from the human detector than the fourth detection area is (Ono: ‘expressly teaches a third detection area (approach sensing area R1) that generally includes a second detection area (sensing area F), thereby teaching a third detection area that includes the second detection area and an additional region outside the second detection area (the remainder of R1 outside F)’ [0029-0030]. Ono further teaches a first detection area (standstill sensing area R2) that is closer than R1 based on distance definitions. [0032;0039]).
Masumoto in view of Ono are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing; e.g., both disclose methods of shifting the power modes in an MFP based on the distance of a user who is proximate to the MFP.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose a fifth detection area that includes the fourth detection area and a region located farther from the human detector than the fourth detection area is. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to achieve a more distinct readiness and power conservation as a user approaches. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Masumoto with Ono to obtain the invention as specified.
The proposed combination of Masumoto in view of Ono do not expressly disclose transition the electronic apparatus to a third power-consumption mode when the observation target is no longer detected in the fourth detection area after the electronic apparatus enters the second power-consumption mode and the observation target is detected in the fifth detection area, the power consumption being smaller in the third power consumption mode than in the second power-consumption mode.
Baba discloses transition the electronic apparatus to a third power-consumption mode when the observation target is no longer detected in the fourth detection area after the electronic apparatus enters the second power-consumption mode and the observation target is detected in the fifth detection area, the power consumption being smaller in the third power consumption mode than in the second power-consumption mode (Baba: Fig. 11 flowchart teaches a transition of power states with four distinct power levels, L1-L4 with power only supplied to the parts of the MFP that are necessary based on the user’s position. For example, step S106 discloses that if it is determined that the moving object is expected to approach the apparatus that power supply goes from power Level 2, wherein we to power Level 3 wherein power is supplied to the main controller and the UI touch panel [0123, 0130]; Baba further teaches a staged downshift during approach control, including ceasing power supply to the UI touch panel when the user is approaching but not engaging, thereby reducing power from a higher state to a lower state. [0176].
Accordingly, transitioning from the higher-powered state (third mode) to a lower powered state (fourth mode) when the user is no longer detected in nearer areas is taught by Masumoto in view of Ono, and further in view of Baba, and are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing; e.g., all disclose methods of shifting the power modes in an MFP based on the distance of a user who is proximate to the MFP.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to discloses transition the electronic apparatus to a third power-consumption mode when the observation target is no longer detected in the fourth detection area after the electronic apparatus enters the second power-consumption mode and the observation target is detected in the fifth detection area, the power consumption being smaller in the third power consumption mode than in the second power-consumption mode. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to improve responsiveness when a user is in the closest region and to avoid unnecessary power consumption when the user is not engaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Masumoto, Ono & Baba to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Regarding Claim 11: (drawn to a computer-readable storage medium)
The proposed rejection of device claim 1, over Masumoto, Ono, & Baba is similarly cited to reject the computer readable medium of claim 11 because these steps occur in the operation of the apparatus as discussed above. Thus, the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 11.
It is noted that Masumoto et al. discloses a computer-readable storage medium at least at ¶ [0144 and 0314].
15. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masumoto, Ono & Baba as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi (US 2016/0142576).
Regarding Claim 2:
The proposed combination of Masumoto, Ono & Baba disclose the electronic apparatus according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the processor is configured to:
render detection of the observation target in the first detection area or in the second detection area for transitioning to the fourth power-consumption mode ineffective when the observation target is undetected in the first detection area or when the electronic apparatus is not in the third power-consumption mode.
Yamaguchi discloses render detection of the observation target in the first detection area or in the second detection area for transitioning to the fourth power-consumption mode ineffective when the observation target is undetected in the first detection area or when the electronic apparatus is not in the third power-consumption mode (Yamaguchi: Fig. 5A‘teaches suspending emission of light to a termination area (thereby making the termination trigger ineffective), which is analogous to rendering the termination-related detection ineffective under specified conditions’ [0116-0118]).
Masumoto, Ono, Baba & Yamaguchi are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing; e.g., all disclose methods of shifting the power modes in an MFP based on the distance of a user who is proximate to the MFP.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to render detection of the observation target in the first detection area or in the second detection area for transitioning to the fourth power-consumption mode ineffective when the observation target is undetected in the first detection area or when the electronic apparatus is not in the third power-consumption mode. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to apply Yamaguchi’s explicit suspend/ineffective gating to the combined proximity-based mode transitions to prevent undesired transitions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Masumoto, Ono, Baba & Yamaguchi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
16. Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masumoto, Ono, and Baba as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park (US 2017/0195508).
Regarding Claim 4:
The proposed combination of Masumoto, Ono & Baba further disclose the electronic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: individually recognize observation targets that have been observed (Baba: ‘teaches identity recognition information based on recognizing a user’ [0081-0082; 0106-0107]),
However Masumoto, Ono, and Baba do not expressly disclose refrain from transitioning the electronic apparatus to the fourth power-consumption mode while an observation target other than a specific observation target that has been recognized is present in the first detection area or in the second detection area even when the processor detects that the specific observation target moves from the second detection area to the third detection area.
Park discloses refrain from transitioning the electronic apparatus to the fourth power- consumption mode while an observation target other than a specific observation target that has been recognized is present in the first detection area or in the second detection area even when the processor detects that the specific observation target moves from the second detection area to the third detection area (Park: Figs. 4A and 4B ‘teaches detecting multiple users in a user sensing area and determining user locations, enabling control that maintains a higher state while any other user remains in nearer zones’ [0074-0076; 0086]).
Masumoto, Ono, Baba & Park are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing; e.g., all disclose methods of shifting the power modes in an MFP based on the distance of a user who is proximate to the MFP.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to refrain from transitioning the electronic apparatus to the fourth power- consumption mode while an observation target other than a specific observation target that has been recognized is present in the first detection area or in the second detection area even when the processor detects that the specific observation target moves from the second detection area to the third detection area. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to incorporate known user recognition as taught by Baba, and multi-user localization as taught by Park into proximity-based power control for shared MFPs to avoid premature downshifts when additional users remain nearby. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Masumoto, Ono, Baba & Park to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Regarding Claim 9:
The proposed combination of Masumoto, Ono & Baba further disclose the electronic apparatus according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the processor is configured to: identify as a detection target an observation target detected at a position closest to the human detector when a plurality of observation targets are detected.
Park discloses wherein the processor is configured to: identify as a detection target an observation target detected at a position closest to the human detector when a plurality of observation targets are detected (Park: ‘teaches detecting multiple users and determining user locations in the user sensing area, enabling selection of the closest user (e.g., distance threshold based control’ [0074-0076; 0086]).
Masumoto, Ono, Baba & Park are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing; e.g., all disclose methods of shifting the power modes in an MFP based on the distance of a user who is proximate to the MFP.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to wherein the processor is configured to: identify as a detection target an observation target detected at a position closest to the human detector when a plurality of observation targets are detected.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to apply a predictable control rule that enables selection of the closest target when multiple user locations are determined. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Masumoto, Ono, Baba & Park to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
17. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masumoto, Ono, and Baba as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fukushima (US 2017/0041483).
Regarding Claim 8:
The proposed combination of Masumoto, Ono & Baba disclose the electronic apparatus according to claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the human detector is a sonic sensor.
Fukushima discloses wherein the human detector is a sonic sensor (Fukushima: Fig. 1 ‘ultrasonic sensor 15’ [0027-0028]).
Masumoto, Ono, Baba & Fukushima are combinable because they are from are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing; e.g., all disclose methods of shifting the power modes in an MFP based on the distance of a user who is proximate to the MFP.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose wherein the human detector is a sonic sensor.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to use a well-known method of determining the distance to an object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Masumoto, Ono, Baba & Fukushima to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Conclusion
18. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miyahara et al. (US 11,523,018) discloses an image forming apparatus that reduces discomfort when returning from the energy saving mode. The image forming apparatus can switch between an energy saving mode and a normal mode that consumes more power than the energy saving mode as the operation mode. A human sensor can detect a person and calculate the distance to the person. An operation mode control unit raises the temperature of the fixing unit of the image forming unit when a person detected by the human sensor approaches within the first specific distance, and it start transport unit to be driven when the person approaches within a second specific distance, which is closer than the first specific distance.
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEIL R MCLEAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1679. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 6AM - 4PM, PST.
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, Akwasi M Sarpong can be reached at 571.270.3438. 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.
/NEIL R MCLEAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681