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 .
The current application has a priority date of 07/29/2021 according to priority chain on the record.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“detector” in claims 1 and 4
“region determination unit” in claim 1
“luminance adjustment unit” in claims 1-3
“distance measurement unit” in claim 2
“pupil measurement unit” in claim 3
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble of should be amended to “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores a computer program executable by a computer operating as a diagnosis image reading apparatus…”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2 and 3 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.
Regarding claim 2, “the luminance adjustment unit is further configured to adjust to increase luminance of a part connecting the regions, the distance therebetween being equal to or larger than a threshold” is indefinite for the following reasons. First, the relationship between the ‘increase luminance’ feature and ‘distance equal to or larger than threshold’ feature is not clearly recited in the claim. For examination purposes, it is the Examiner’s best guess that luminance is increased when the distance is equal to or larger than threshold. Second, the term “a part connecting the regions” is indefinite. Neither the claim nor the Specification clearly defines what makes up “a part connecting” the regions as the claims are drafted; specifically, it is unclear how much area (e.g. dimension) relative to the designated regions, and/or area of the display/screen is considered a part connecting the designated regions. Under BRI, this connecting ‘part’ spans from the entirety of the display screen exclusive of the designated regions to a narrow path/line connecting the designated regions. The Applicant is required to clarify “a part” in this claim.
Claim 3 also recites “a part connecting the designated regions”; the term “a part” is rejected as indefinite under the same rationale discussed immediately above to claim 2.
Claim Interpretation
In claims 1, 4 and 5, the limitation “where the line of sight of the user is position in multiple regions divided in each of the images”; the term ‘divided’ is not interpreted as an action/verb in the claim, based on the Specification (pgs. 2 Summary of Invention and pg. 7 last full paragraph) and the context of the claim, it is interpreted as equivalent to identifying different regions across each of the images. Note: this is different from “The region determination unit 22 may, for example, divide a display screen of the display 12 into multiple … for example, divide the image displayed on the display screen of the display 12 into multiple regions” (Specification, end of pg. 7 to pg. 8)
In all pending claims, the limitation “region designated by the line of sign of the user” and/or “designated regions” are interpreted as identified regions that corresponds to the user’s line of sight.
Claim 3, recites “and when the size of the pupil measurement unit exceeds a threshold, the luminance adjustment unit is further configured to adjust to increase luminance of a part connecting the designated regions.” The recitation of “when” is a contingent limitation according to the MPEP 2111.04 II:
II. CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.
See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that "[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur." Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14.
Accordingly, claim 3, which is an apparatus claim, is interpreted as follows: Condition A: when/if “the size of the pupil measurement unit exceeds a threshold” is satisfied; then Step A: “the luminance adjustment unit is further configured to adjust to increase luminance of a part connecting the designated regions”. The contingent limitation interpretation can be overcome by replacing “when” or “if” with “whether.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi US 2020/0074941 A1.
PNG
media_image1.png
714
459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi discloses a diagnosis image reading control apparatus (exemplary as shown in Fig.3:1A liquid crystal display/LCD device) comprising:
a display controller (control unit 10A) configured to perform control to display multiple images on a display ([0035] 10A divides the LCD panel 20 into a plurality of display regions as shown in Fig. 8 matrix above, 10A also controls the image and light intensity displayed on panel 20; the image displayed on each of said plurality of display regions is interpreted as “display multiple images on a display” in this claim);
a detector (point of gaze detection sensor 2) configured to detect a line of sight of a user on the display ([0062] sensor 2 detects a viewer's point of gaze on the display screen);
a region determination unit (luminance slope information generation unit 12) configured to determine where the line of sight of the user is positioned in multiple regions divided in each of the images ([0078-0079] viewers point of gaze signal 54 is transmitted to unit 12, which associates a region containing the viewer’s point of gaze, and identifies a ‘range of gaze’ amongst the plurality of regions. See Fig.7 above, the viewer 3’s line of gaze is indicated as point F, which corresponds to Fig.8: point F); and
a luminance adjustment unit (backlight signal correcting unit 13) configured to adjust luminance of the images, wherein the luminance adjustment unit (unit 13) is further configured to adjust to increase luminance of the region designated by the line of sight of the user in the images. (Unit 13 receives ‘range of gaze’ signal, then determines and controls light emission intensity by increasing the light intensity in each LED unit 32 in the identified ‘range of gaze’; see [0099-0104] and Fig. 8 above, ‘range of gaze’ corresponds to point F and its immediate adjacent area has noticeably brighter backlight compare to the other regions of the displayed screen. In here, ‘range of gaze’, i.e. Fig.8: 9 regions containing point F is taken to encompass “regions designated by the line of sight of user” in this claim).
Regarding claim 4, Takahashi teaches a diagnosis image reading control method (Abstract and Fig.6 illustrates a method for enhance contrast on LCD device 1A exemplary as shown in Fig.3) comprising:
performing control to display multiple images on a display ([0035] control unit 10A divides the LCD panel 20 into a plurality of display regions as shown in Fig. 8 matrix above, 10A also controls the image and light intensity displayed on panel 20; the image displayed on each of said plurality of display regions is interpreted as “display multiple images on a display” in this claim);
detecting a line of sight of a user on the display ([0062] point of gaze detection sensor 2 detects a viewer's point of gaze on the display screen, this is indicated as point F in Figs. 7 and 8 above);
determining where the line of sight of the user is positioned in multiple regions divided in each of the images ([0078-0079] viewers point of gaze signal 54 is transmitted to luminance slope information generation unit 12, which associates a region containing the viewer’s point of gaze, and identifies this region as ‘range of gaze’ amongst the plurality of regions. See Fig.7 above, the viewer 3’s line of gaze is indicated as point F, which corresponds to Fig.8: point F); and
adjusting luminance of the images, wherein the adjusting further comprising adjusting to increase luminance of the regions designated by the line of sight of the user in the images. (Backlight signal correcting unit 13 receives ‘range of gaze’ signal, then determines and controls light emission intensity by increasing the light intensity in each LED unit 32 in the identified ‘range of gaze’; see [0099-0104] and Fig. 8 above, ‘range of gaze’ corresponds to point F and its immediate adjacent area has noticeably brighter backlight compare to the other regions of the displayed screen. In here, ‘range of gaze’, i.e. Fig.8: 9 regions containing point F is taken to encompass “regions designated by the line of sight of user” in this claim).
Regarding claim 5, Takahashi discloses a non-transitory storage medium that stores a computer program ([0199-0200] software implementations) executed by a computer (control unit 10A) operating as a diagnosis image reading apparatus (LCD unit 1A). This is rejected by Takahashi under the same rationale as discussed to claim 4 immediately above.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pacheco et al. US 2016/0334868 A1 (hereinafter “Pacheco”).
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi teaches the diagnosis image reading control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the detector is further configured to detect that the line of sight of the user is moving between the designated regions in the images ([0062] the point of gaze detection sensor 2 is also an eye tracker for detecting the movement of a viewer’s line of size, which corresponds to a plurality of point F regions). Takahashi teaches a “range of gaze” to include the designated regions i.e. point F, and its immediate surrounding area (Fig. 8 and [0125, 0129]) and Takahashi also associates pupil dilation to screens having rights spots and the surrounding environmental is bright ([0123]), but Takahashi does not teach the apparatus further comprising a pupil measurement unit configured to measure a size of a pupil of the user, and when the size of the pupil measured by the pupil measurement unit exceeds a threshold, the luminance adjustment unit is further configured to adjust to increase luminance of a part connecting the designated regions.
Pacheco, another prior art reference in the analogous field of system and method for adapting a display based on observing a viewer’s eye or eye-gaze, discloses a display (204) comprising a pupil measurement unit (iris camera 212) configured to measure a size of a pupil of the user, and when the size of the pupil measured by the pupil measurement unit exceeds a threshold, a luminance adjustment unit (eye comfort monitor 206) is further configured to adjust to increase luminance of a display screen ([0035] brightness adjustment based by comparing detected size of pupil to predetermined threshold stored in a user look-up table, also see Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Takahashi, in view of Pacheco so as to further monitor the pupil size of a viewer so as to adjust screen brightness of the designated areas (i.e. viewer’s line of sight regions), and a part connecting the designated areas, the motivation for doing so is to automatically adjust screen brightness for the viewer’s eye comfort (Pachecho: [0035] adjusting brightness based on pupil size for increased eye comfort, and Takahashi: [0123] increase eye comfort when pupil dilation is poor when screen has bright spots surrounded by dark environment.)
The claim term “a part connecting the designated regions” is interpreted regions immediately supporting the designated regions, this is taught in Takahashi “range of gaze” (Fig. 8: bright region including point F and surrounding areas, also see [0125, 0129, 0139] discusses increase luminance in “range of gaze” regions).
Conclusion
Note to Applicant: Claim 2 is not rejected under prior art, but remains rejected under 35 USC 112. The Applicant is invited to schedule an interview with the Examiner to expedite prosecution.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
To claim 2: Takahashi discloses the point of gaze detection sensor 2 is an eye tracker for detecting the movement of a viewer’s line of size ([0062]) which corresponds to locating a plurality of point F, but does not teach a distance measurement unit configured to measure a distance between the plurality of regions as recited in claim 2.
To claims 1, 4 and 5:
Narita et al. (US 2015/0116203 A1) Figs. 1, 3-4 and [0067] discloses a display device comprising a sensor for detecting a viewer’s relative distance and line of sight on the display and adjusting displayed features accordingly, e.g. saturation, brightness, etc.
Yokoyama (US 2005/0180740 A1) teaches a display control apparatus that uses a camera to detect a user’s view point on a screen and controls the display apparatus in order to adjust displayed features; see Fig. 1 and 3
Imai et al. US 2011/0273466, display device uses a camera to detect a viewer’s relative distance and viewer’s eye movements to identify area(s) of interest, the controls the rendered image and imaging property of said ROIs on the screen; see Figs. 1-2 and [0030]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIRLEY X JIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7374. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/SHIRLEY X JIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
November 4, 2025