DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is responsive to claims filed for App. 18/482,951 on October 20, 2026. Claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 are pending.
America Invents Act
2. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
4. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
5. Claim 1 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim et al. ( US 2010/0177037 A1 ) in view of Hohjoh ( US 2012/0086829 A1 ) and Pavagada et al. ( US 2012/0148216 A1 ).
Kim teaches in Claim 1:
A method for sensing ambient light to control a mobile phone ( Figure 1, [0033] discloses a portable terminal 1000 with a sensor unit 102 including a light sensor which can additionally acquire information necessary for determining motion of the terminal ), comprising:
when the mobile phone is ringing…
analyzing the [comparison data to determine whether a dynamic range of the comparison data changes from a bright range to a dark range over the predetermined period of time] to generate a flip signal to determine whether the mobile phone flips ( Figures 4A-4C, [0068], [0043] discloses in a case where call reception occurs during a busy work or a conference (read as mobile phone is ringing), an operation mode can be changed by changing the portable terminal in direction. To clarify, [0066] discloses the portable terminal is set to change into a vibration mode when a user turns the portable terminal on its back and a flip motion is shown. [0050]+, Table 1 discloses a state of turning over can be detecting by a process of sensing light through a light sensor and/or a process of not sensing light (covering front to back as well as back to front). The flipping motion is determined by the light sensor and a control function, such as bell mode, mute mode, vibration mode, etc. As for aspects of the comparison of a dynamic range, please note the combination below ); and
when the flip signal indicates that the mobile phone flips, a ringtone of the phone is changed to a silent mode ( As disclosed above, [0050], [0068] disclose that when a call reception occurs during a busy work or a conference, the user can quickly set the portable terminal to vibration/mute simply by turning the terminal over front to back ); but
Kim does not explicitly teach of “capturing a first visible light image and, after a predetermined period of time, capturing a second visible light image by the mobile phone; dividing each of the first visible light image and the second visible light image into a plurality of image blocks, wherein the plurality of image blocks are of equal sizes, or are sized according to radial positions relative to a center of a corresponding image area of the first visible light image or the second visible light image; for each image block, extracting at least one brightness value; generating a comparison data by computing, for corresponding image blocks, a difference between the brightness values of the first visible light image and the second visible light image”.
However, in the same field of endeavor, image processing, Hohjoh teaches of using a sensor to capture an image, similar to Kim, ( Hohjoh, [0003] ). Hohjoh teaches in [0012] of dividing an image into image blocks, as shown in Figure 4, etc and comparing these blocks with a reference image (read the comparison at two different time points given they are different images taken at different times). To clarify, the two different time points is also indicative of a predetermined period of time, to be used for comparison as [0006] discloses the timings are important to prevent the occurrence of ghosts. Respectfully, Kim (and Pavagada below) teach of capturing images using a light sensor and comparing the current image to a previous image to determine the aspects of brightness change. As for the aspects of equal size or sized according to radial positions, etc, Examiner initially notes the alternative/constructive limitation here, i.e. or. Furthermore, Hohjoh teaches in Figures 4 and 8, [0057] of diving into image blocks of a predetermined size, i.e. equal size. Furthermore, Hohjoh teaches the sizing of the blocks can be adjusted to balance accuracy versus calculation/processing loads. Still, with the predetermined size and/or suggestion to modify the size of the blocks, it is clear one of ordinary skill could size these in a number of ways. As combined with Hohjoh, the specifics of the image analysis are taught.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filed date of the invention, to implement the image manipulation, as taught by Hohjoh, with the motivation that by breaking down the image into blocks and analyzing, a higher accuracy at a moving subject in the image can be achieved, ( Hohjoh, [0057] ). Essentially, better tracking/comparison between images can be achieved.
Kim also does not explicitly teach of “analyzing the comparison data to determine whether a dynamic range of the comparison data changes from a bright range to a dark range over the predetermined period of time” to generate a flip signal to determine whether the mobile phone flips.
However, in the same field of endeavor, portable devices and determining orientations, Pavagada teaches to determine if a video camera has been placed down, ( Pavagada, [0042] ), similar to Kim. Pavagada further teaches to use an image sensor to determine a black/dark screen. This is based on image processor processing brightness information received from the image sensor based on changes between adjacent frames (see details on the black/dark screen, which is a change from a previous frame in which the camera was not placed down. Please interpret this as changing from a bright range to a dark range over a predetermined period of time). Furthermore, the image processing to determine this are concepts of analyzing image characteristics. Pavagada, [0052] discloses additional details of the camera image sensor and the brightness information, etc, which can determine abrupt changes. To clarify, Kim teaches to use a light sensor and Pavagada teaches to use an image sensor to process image characteristics to also arrive at the same conclusion/functionality. Respectfully, it is clear that when using a camera sensor that an image would obviously be captured/taken and this image is what is analyzed in order to determine the ambient light intensity level. As combined with Kim, an image sensor could be used to also determine the ambient light intensity level as Pavagada teaches this and/or a light sensor could be used ( [0057]); it is a simple/well known technique. By capturing images and analyzing them, one of ordinary skill would be able to realize the device is facing down and still achieve Kim’s functionality.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to implement the camera sensor, as taught by Pavagada, with the motivation that determinations can be made on the orientation of the device and whether video capture is intended, allowing for accurate recording and stabilization, ( Pavagada, [0042]-[0043] ). Furthermore, when determining if facing down, recording/functionality can be stopped, as is known in the art and taught by Kim.
6. Claim 2 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim et al. ( US 2010/0177037 A1 ), Hohjoh ( US 2012/0086829 A1 ), and Pavagada et al. ( US 2018/0148216 A1 ), as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Papakipos et al. ( US 2013/0100017 A1 ).
As per Claim 2:
Kim does not explicitly teach “after the ringtone of the phone is changed to the silent mode, hanging up the phone.”
However, in the same field of endeavor, motion/orientation aspects of portable devices, Papakipos teaches a user may place a mobile phone on a table during a phone call and the user can end or mute the phone call by simply flipping over the phone, ( Papakipos, [0022] ). To clarify, as combined, Kim teaches of turning the portable terminal to change the operation to mute/vibrate during a busy work time or conference, and Papakipos teaches of specifically ending (hanging up) the phone simply by flipping the phone, an aspect Kim also teaches.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to implement the end/muting of the phone call, as taught by Papakipos, with the motivation that it is convenient (“simply”) for the user to end a call to flip over the phone, ( Papakipos, [0022] ).
7. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Matoba ( US 2010/0240418 A1 ) in view of Hohjoh ( US 2012/0086829 A1 ), Pavagada et al. ( US 2012/0148216 A1 ), and Coons ( US 2013/0251215 A1 )
Matoba teaches in Claim 4:
A method for sensing ambient light to control a mobile phone ( [0018] discloses an automated light control system for a cellular phone. [0033] discloses an illumination sensor 4 to detect brightness in the periphery and is used in the light control system ), comprising:
when the mobile phone is in a conversation mode, capturing a first visible light image, and [after a predetermined period of time, capturing a second visible light image by the mobile phone]; [analyzing the comparison data to determine whether a dynamic range of the comparison data changes from a bright range to a dark range over the predetermined period of time to generate a proximity signal] ( Figure 4, [0041], [0045] discloses when the phone is used in a telephone call (read as a conversation mode), the backlight can be controlled to be turned ON/OFF in accordance with the distance (proximity) from the user. [0033] discloses the illumination sensor 4 detects the brightness and the amount of light that enters into the sensor is dependent on the distance of the user from the light source. Please note details of distance measurements, such as 50 cm, etc, which impacts the illumination sensor and the backlight can changed accordingly. To clarify, please note that the illumination sensor is used, along with a proximity sensor, to generate/effect change of the backlight, as supported by [0035], Claim 1 of the Matoba, etc. Matoba teaches of an illumination sensor which can determine the amount of light in the surrounding area, notably for detecting how close the device is from the user’s ear/face. The amount of light is based on a proximity of the device to the user and in conjunction with a proximity sensor allows for control of the backlight to be adjusted ); and
when the proximity signal indicates that the mobile phone is close to a user, a brightness of a display of the mobile phone is decreased or the display is shut down, ( [0041] discloses that when the distance to the user becomes smaller, the light emission of the backlight stops. Furthermore, [0036] discloses that control current for the backlight can be set to linear and is dependent/proportional to the distance from the user ); but
Matoba does not explicitly teach of “capturing a first visible light image and, after a predetermined period of time, capturing a second visible light image; dividing each of the first visible light image and the second visible light image into a plurality of image blocks, wherein the plurality of image blocks are of equal sizes, or are sized according to radial positions relative to a center of a corresponding image area of the first visible light image or the second visible light image; for each image block, extracting at least one brightness value; generating a comparison data, by computing, for corresponding image blocks, a difference between the brightness value of the first visible light image and the second visible light image”.
However, in the same field of endeavor, image processing, Hohjoh teaches of using a sensor to capture an image, similar to Kim, ( Hohjoh, [0003] ). Hohjoh teaches in [0012] of dividing an image into image blocks, as shown in Figure 4, etc and comparing these blocks with a reference image (read the comparison at two different time points given they are different images taken at different times). To clarify, the two different time points is also indicative of a predetermined period of time, to be used for comparison as [0006] discloses the timings are important to prevent the occurrence of ghosts. Respectfully, Kim (and Pavagada below) teach of capturing images using a light sensor and comparing the current image to a previous image to determine the aspects of brightness change. As for the aspects of equal size or sized according to radial positions, etc, Examiner initially notes the alternative/constructive limitation here, i.e. or. Furthermore, Hohjoh teaches in Figures 4 and 8, [0057] of diving into image blocks of a predetermined size, i.e. equal size. Furthermore, Hohjoh teaches the sizing of the blocks can be adjusted to balance accuracy versus calculation/processing loads. Still, with the predetermined size and/or suggestion to modify the size of the blocks, it is clear one of ordinary skill could size these in a number of ways. As combined with Hohjoh, the specifics of the image analysis are taught.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filed date of the invention, to implement the image manipulation, as taught by Hohjoh, with the motivation that by breaking down the image into blocks and analyzing, a higher accuracy at a moving subject in the image can be achieved, ( Hohjoh, [0057] ). Essentially, better tracking/comparison between images can be achieved.
However, in the same field of endeavor, portable devices and determining orientations, Pavagada teaches to determine if a video camera has been placed down, ( Pavagada, [0042] ), similar to Kim. Pavagada further teaches to use an image sensor to determine a black/dark screen. This is based on image processor processing brightness information received from the image sensor based on changes between adjacent frames (see details on the black/dark screen, which is a change from a previous frame in which the camera was not placed down. Please interpret this as changing from a bright range to a dark range over a predetermined period of time). Furthermore, the image processing to determine this are concepts of analyzing image characteristics. Pavagada, [0052] discloses additional details of the camera image sensor and the brightness information, etc, which can determine abrupt changes. To clarify, Kim teaches to use a light sensor and Pavagada teaches to use an image sensor to process image characteristics to also arrive at the same conclusion/functionality. Respectfully, it is clear that when using a camera sensor that an image would obviously be captured/taken and this image is what is analyzed in order to determine the ambient light intensity level. As combined with Kim, an image sensor could be used to also determine the ambient light intensity level as Pavagada teaches this and/or a light sensor could be used ( [0057]); it is a simple/well known technique. By capturing images and analyzing them, one of ordinary skill would be able to realize the device is facing down and still achieve Kim’s functionality.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to implement the camera sensor, as taught by Pavagada, with the motivation that determinations can be made on the orientation of the device and whether video capture is intended, allowing for accurate recording and stabilization, ( Pavagada, [0042]-[0043] ). Furthermore, when determining if facing down, recording/functionality can be stopped, as is known in the art and taught by Kim.
Matoba also does not explicitly teach of analyzing the comparison data and “generating a proximity signal” (emphasis on the proximity aspects).
Initially, Matoba does teach in [0035] of controlling the amount of light emitted on the basis of the information of the brightness from the illumination sensor 4 AND the information on the distance from the proximity sensor (read as a combination of changes and/or “based on both”). Furthermore, Matoba teaches in [0031] of proximity signals using infrared rays emitted by a light emitting diode and then reflected rays are received, a popular approach to proximity detection. However, Matoba does not detail analyzing image characteristics, etc.
However, in the same field of endeavor, portable device with proximity detection, Coons teaches of an infrared proximity sensor 30, ( Coons, Figure 1, [0034] ). Notably, this includes an IR emitter 31 and IR sensor 32 to sense the reflected IR illumination from the user and this is used to determine user proximity. Coons, [0036] discloses a camera 25 which can capture an image of the user’s face upon the reflected IR illumination. The captured image is processed to not only determine proximity, but other useful aspects such as authentication, [0037], which involve analyzing image characteristics. As for the adjustment being based on both the detected ambient light intensity and a duration over which an intensity change is sustained, the combination teaches to determine if the device is adjacent to the user’s face by means of proximity and as long as this proximity is sustained, the adjustment is maintained. [0035] discloses of turning off the display when the device is adjacent to a user’s face, similar to Matoba as well. To clarify, if the proximity changes, then the intensity/duration also changes. As combined with Matoba, who teaches of infrared aspects to be used in conjunction/combination with a light sensor in order to determine device orientation, etc, the camera of Coons can be incorporated to capture the IR aspects to determine proximity as well/alternatively.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to implement the camera to analyze image characteristics to determine proximity aspects, as taught by Coons, with the motivation that the image processing can be useful to determine whether or not to turn off the display as well as determining facial recognition, ( Coons, [0037] ).
Matoba teaches in Claim 5:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: after the brightness of the display is decreased or the display is shut down, when the proximity signal indicates that the mobile phone is not close to a user, resuming the brightness of the display. ( Figure 4, [0036], [0041], [0015] discloses a flowchart in which the backlight can be toggled between ON and OFF as well as resuming light emission on the basis of distance information. To clarify, as the distance to the user increases, the backlight is turned back ON and/or increased in control current )
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant’s arguments considered, but are respectfully not persuasive.
Please note the updated rejection in light of the claim amendments, notably the clarification/citation of Hohjoh for the new limitation.
Hohjoh teaches in Figures 4 and 8, [0057] of dividing the reference image into image blocks of a predetermined size. As Figures 4 and 8 show, the size can be adjusted to balance accuracy versus load processing. In general, one of ordinary skill in the art would realize the sizing could be adjusted, whether it is equal (as the claim limitation would be satisfied) or it could be sized based on a number of conditions.
Examiner advises to better define this limitation and focusing on the particular sizing. If there is a patentable distinction to the sizing and it can be claimed such that Hohjoh’s teachings could not reasonably read/encompass it, then this needs to be better defined.
As for Claim 2, the combination as a whole teaches of an image-based analysis sequence. Papakipos should not be attached individually when relied on in combination. The same reasoning is applied to Claim 4, with regards to the visible-light-based proximity detection. Matoba teaches of a light control system and is focused on power consumption. The combination with other references also teach of a “light-based” detection of brightness, etc, (which Matoba is also concerned with).
Conclusion
9. All claims are either identical to or patentably indistinct from the claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 extension fee 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 DENNIS P JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 5:30 - 3:30 EST.
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, Amr Awad can be reached on 571-272-7764. 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.
/DENNIS P JOSEPH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights