DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagalla (US 10,354,126) in view of PARK et al (2022/0303455) (herein “PARK”). In regards to claims 1, 7 and 8, Nagalla teaches an electronic device comprising: a sensor including a first detection unit, wherein the first detection unit is configured to detect at least a part of a user body (See; Fig. 1 for imaging sensor 122 and Fig. 2 202 for detecting the presence of a user and step 204 where an image of the user’s face is captured. See; Column 15, lines 42-53. Where the detection of the user or the users face can be considered “at least a part of a user body”); and a processor including an activation processing unit, wherein the activation processing unit is configured to execute an activation processing (See; Column 15, lines 52-53 where the authentication process is activated in response to the presence of a user at the terminal) and the execution of the activation processing operation is based on the detection of at least the part of the user body (See; Column 15, lines 42-53 where a processor initiates an authentication process 200 in response to detecting the user). Nagalla fails to explicitly teach the activation processing unit is configured to execute an activation processing operation to activate the processor. However Park teaches an electronic device comprising: a sensor including a first detection unit, wherein the first detection unit is configured to detect at least a part of a user body; and a processor including an activation processing unit, wherein the activation processing unit is configured to execute an activation processing operation to activate the processor and the execution of the activation processing operation is based on the detection of at least the part of the user body (See; p[0098] where the face of the user is detected by the image sensor 400 as a user approached the terminal, where the image sensor triggers a signal to wake up the application processor in response to detecting the face of the user). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Nagalla to wake the processor in response to detecting the part of the user body for saving power when the terminal is not in use.
In regards to claim 2, Nagalla teaches wherein the sensor is configured to capture a first image,the processor further includes a recognition unit and the recognition unit is configured to recognize a user gesture based on the captured first image and the detection of at least the part of the user body (See; Fig. 2 , 210 and Column 16, lines 65-67 and Column 17, lines 34-50 where a dynamic facial gesture of the user is captured after the user has been detected in step 202). PARK also teaches in p[0098].
In regards to claim 3, Nagalla teaches wherein the sensor further includes a second detection unit, the second detection unit is configured to detect a user motion, and the first detection unit if further configured to detect at least the part of the user body based on the detection of the user motion (See; Column 15, lines 42-53 where the detected motion of the user could be detecting a person moving within a field of view of the imaging sensor, after the presence / motion is detected the face is imaged). PARK also teaches in p[0098].
In regards to claim 6, Nagalla teaches wherein the electronic device is a user terminal (See; Fig. 1 and Column 7, lines 1-22 where the authentication system may be included in a user terminal).
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagalla (US 10,354,126) in view of PARK et al (2022/0303455) (herein “PARK”) and further in view of Liu et al (2021/0250554) (herein “Liu”). In regards to claim 4, Nagalla fails to explicitly teach wherein the sensor is further configured to generate a second image based on the captured first image, a resolution of the generated second image is less than a resolution of the captured first image, and the sensor is further configured to detect at least the part of the user body in the generated second image. However, Liu teaches wherein the sensor is further configured to generate a second image based on the captured first image, a resolution of the generated second image is less than a resolution of the captured first image, and the sensor is further configured to detect at least the part of the user body in the generated second image(See; Fig. 1 and p[0037] for a vehicle control system which authenticates a user using a first camera taking a low resolution image of an approaching user and a second camera for taking a higher resolution image for authentication of the user). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to only use the needed image definition for each specific capture process so as to reduce total power consumption of the cameras / sensors.
In regards to claim 5, Liu teaches wherein the sensor is further configured to generate a third image based on the captured first image, a resolution of the generated third image is less than the resolution of the captured second image, and the sensor is further configured to detect the user in the generated third image (See; p[0037] for a vehicle control system which authenticates a user using a first camera taking a low resolution image of an approaching user and a second camera for taking a higher resolution image for authentication of the user. Where it would be obvious in light of Liu’s power savings that detecting motion of a user would only require a minimal image definition and would be less than the images needed for authentication). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to only use the needed image definition for each specific capture process so as to reduce total power consumption of the cameras / sensors.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN A BOYD whose telephone number is (571)270-7503. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at (571) 272-7776. 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.
/JONATHAN A BOYD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627