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 .
Response to Amendment
The applicant has amended their application as follows:
Amended: 1, 4-5, 11, 14-15
Cancelled: 3, 6-7, 9, 13, 16-17 and 19
Added: None
Therefore, claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 10-12, 14-15, 18 and 20 are currently pending in the instant application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8, 11-12, 14-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martensson et al. (US 2016/0266643 A1, hereinafter “Martensson”) in view of Suzuki (US Patent No. 5,859,921: hereinafter “Suzuki”) and Koyama et al. (US 2006/0055657 A1, hereinafter “Koyama”).
As to claim 1, Martensson (Fig. 2) discloses t system for adjusting a level of luminance of a display (18), wherein the system comprises:
a display unit (32) configured to display a content (Para. 0032);
a capturing unit (46) configured to capture an image of a front view of the display unit (Para. 0038), wherein the image is of a front-facing side of the display unit;
a computing unit (12) coupled to the display unit and the capturing unit, wherein the computing unit is configured to:
receive the image from the capturing unit (Fig. 5 step 106);
determine one or more target regions from a plurality of regions in the image (step 10; Para. 0068), based on a weightage of each of the plurality of regions (Fig. 4a-4c; Para. 0053, identifying pupil from the image);
determine effects of light incident on the one or more target regions (Para. 0068);
adjust the level of luminance of the display based on the effects of the light (step 112, 114);
analyse context information related to an automobile (step 104; Para. 0022, 0065);
wherein the priority is based on at least an aperture of an iris of a user (Fig. 4a-4c; Para. 0054; diameter of pupil), and
determine a requirement of adjusting the level of luminance of the display based on the analysis (step 110; Para. 0069).
Martensson does not disclose wherein the effects of the light comprises an intensity of the light, and distribution of the light on the one or more target regions, wherein the intensity of the light incident on the one or more target regions and the distribution of the light incident on the one or more target regions is determined from a histogram of the image;
determine the one or more target regions from the plurality of regions by:
assigning the weightage based on a priority associated with the plurality of regions; and
selecting regions from the plurality of regions with the weightage greater than a pre- defined threshold value as the one or more target regions.
However, Suzuki (Fig. 4) teaches wherein the effects of the light comprises an intensity of the light, and distribution of the light on the one or more target regions (Col. 18 lines 39-67), wherein the intensity of the light incident on the one or more target regions and the distribution of the light incident on the one or more target regions is determined from a histogram of the image (Fig. 6);
adjust the level of luminance of the display based on one or more preferences of a user, wherein the one or more preferences of the user comprises an age of the user and conditions of the user;
determine the one or more target regions from the plurality of regions (Fig. 6) by:
assigning the weightage based on a priority associated with the plurality of regions (Fig. 5; Col. 19 lines 20-67); and
selecting regions from the plurality of regions with the weightage greater than a pre- defined threshold value as the one or more target regions (Fig. 7; Col. 20 lines 24-36), and wherein the priority is based on at least an aperture of an iris of a user (Fig. 14; Col. 23 lines 57-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Suzuki to perform a centroid algorithm for image processing in the device disclosed by Martensson. The motivation would have been to identify an eye in the image.
And, Koyama teaches adjust the level of luminance of the display based on one or more preferences of a user, wherein the one or more preferences of the user comprises an age of the user and conditions of the user (Para. 0072,0073, 0088).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Koyama to adjust the luminance level based on the user’s conditions in the device disclosed by Martensson/Suzuki. The motivation would have been to provide user specific luminance levels (Koyama; Para. 0093).
The above rejection also stands for the corresponding method of claim 11.
As to claim 2, Martensson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the computing unit is configured to adjust the level of luminance of the display comprising adjusting a brightness of the display (Fig. 5 step 112, 114; Para. 0069), a contrast of the display, a colour of the display, a grey level of colour components of the display or any combination thereof.
The above rejection also stands for the corresponding method of claim 12.
As to claim 4, Martensson in view of Suzuki and Koyama disclose the system of claim 1. Suzuki further teaches wherein the weightage assigned to a region from the plurality of regions is greater when the priority of the region is higher than other regions from the plurality of regions (Fig. 8; Col. 21 lines 35-41).
The above rejection also stands for the corresponding method of claim 41.
As to claim 5, Martensson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the priority is based on at least identification of a face of the user (Fig. 1 element 5; Fig. 4a).
The above rejection also stands for the corresponding method of claim 15.
As to claim 8, Martensson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the context information comprises a direction of the automobile, speed of the automobile, a time data (Para. 0003, 0004), a location of the automobile or any combination thereof.
The above rejection also stands for the corresponding method of claim 18.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martensson, Suzuki and Koyama as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2016/0358582 A1, hereinafter “Lee”).
As to claim 10, Martensson in view of Suzuki and Koyama does not disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more preferences of the user further comprise a display mode preferred by the user or any combination thereof.
However, Lee teaches wherein the one or more preferences of the user further comprise a display mode preferred by the user or any combination thereof (Para. 0209).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Lee to include user preference in the device disclosed by Martensson/Suzuki/Koyama. The motivation would have been to provide control of the luminance settings to the user (Lee; Para. 0209).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant‘s disclosure.
Liu et al. (US 10,482,350) discloses detecting user’s eyes for drowsiness (Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIPIN GYAWALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1597. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Will Boddie can be reached at 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.
BIPIN GYAWALI
Examiner
Art Unit 2625
/BIPIN GYAWALI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2625