DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Amendment filed 07 November 2025 has been received and considered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
This Action is Final.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 11, 12, 15, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20210322851) in view of Wu et al. (US 20190183263), in view of Pal (US 20150215128) and further in view of John et al. (US 11227060) in view of Liu et al. (US 20200104539) and further in view of Anderson et al. (US 20100205667).
As per claims 1, 5, 15, and 19, Kim et al. disclose a smart mirror method and system comprising: a screen configured to generate a display for viewing by a user; a mirror; a network interface configured to communicate with a remote health data server; memory configured to store computer-executable instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the computer-executable instructions, wherein the computer-executable instructions include: authenticating the user to the remove health server via the network interface (see paragraphs [0027]-[0031] and [0036]-[0038]).
While Kim et al. discloses a smart mirror there lacks an explicit recitation that the smart mirror includes a mirror positioned in front of the screen; a near-field-communication (NFC) card reader located behind the mirror.
However, Wu et al. teaches a smart mirror with a screen configured to generate a display for viewing by a user; a mirror positioned in front of the screen; a near-field-communication (NFC) card reader located behind the mirror; a network interface configured to communicate with a remote device (see paragraphs [0023]-[0027]).
At a time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the smart mirror structure of Wu et al. for the smart mirror of the Kim et al. system.
Motivation, as recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, to do so would have been to allow control of the mirror and display action with the additional functionality of the NFC reader thereby making the smart mirror have more flexibility to perform different actions.
While the modified Kim et al. and Wu et al. system discloses authentication and NFC capabilities, there lacks an explicit teaching of detecting, by the NFC card reader, an NFC chip of a member card placed in proximity to the NFC card reader; in response to detecting the NFC chip, obtaining member information from the detected NFC chip; and authenticating the user to the remote health data server, via the network interface, according, at least in part, to the obtained member information.
However, Pal teaches detecting, by an NFC card reader, an NFC chip of a member card placed in proximity to the NFC card reader; in response to detecting the NFC chip, obtaining member information from the detected NFC chip; and authenticating the user to the remote data server, via the network interface, according, at least in part, to the obtained member information (see paragraphs [0024]-[0025] and [0030]-[0036]).
At a time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the NFC-based authentication in the modified Kim et al. and Wu et al. system.
Motivation to do so would have been to provide access to protected resources without storing any long-term authentication keys on the mobile computing device, while providing strong user authentication and single sign-on to a plurality of protected computing resources (see Pal paragraph [0036]).
The modified Kim et al., Wu et al., and Pal system discloses authorized viewers, but fails to disclose which John et al. discloses detecting a viewer at a viewing proximity location with respect to the screen (see column 37 lines 36-43);
determining whether the detected viewer is authorized to view the secure content portions according to the authorized user database (see column 38 lines 12-41); and
in response to a determination that the detected viewer is not authorized to view the secure content portions: obfuscating the identified one or more secure content portions of the document (see column 39 lines 3-9 where the data is scrambled by default and therefore an unauthorized viewer would only see obfuscated data), wherein the identified one or more secure content portions are displayed without obfuscation when the authorized viewer is detected, and with2 obfuscation when the unauthorized viewer is detected at the viewing proximity location with respect to the screen (see John et al. column 38 line 12 through column 39 line 9).
At a time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to include the gaze detection and obfuscation of John et al. in the modified Kim et al., Wu et al., and Pal system.
Motivation, as recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, to do so would have been to protect sensitive information.
While the modified Kim et al., Wu et al., Pal, and John et al. system generally discloses the use of eye tracking for determining gaze location, there lacks an explicit teaching of obfuscating the portions of the document protected according to document properties based on the gaze location of an unauthorized viewer.
However, Liu et al. teaches a system with a document properties database that identifies secure content portions (see paragraph [0055]) and in response to determining that the detected viewer is not authorized to view the secure content portions: determining a gaze location of the unauthorized viewer on the screen; and in response to the gaze location encompassing the identified one or more secure content portions of the document, obfuscating the identified one or more secure content portions of the document (see paragraphs [0071]-[0079] where the system determines an unauthorized third party is attempting to view a portion of the secured content and in response it obscures the data).
At a time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the unauthorized viewer detection and response in the modified Kim et al., Wu et al., Pal, and John et al. system.
Motivation, as recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, to do so would have been to protect the content when multiple users are viewing the same screen.
While the modified Kim et al., Wu et al., Pal, John et al., and Liu et al. system generally discloses a “default” mode, there lacks an explicit teaching that this mode is applied by displaying the identified one or more secure content portions without obfuscation while no viewers are detected.
However, Anderson et al. teaches a default setting for the protection mode of the content when no users are present (see paragraph [0071] where the default option “typically” resumes protection, this means the option is available to leave protection off by default).
As such, there are a finite number of options to set as default for when no users are present (i.e. no protection, partial protection, or full protection).
At the before the effective filing date of the invention , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try the default option of no protection in the modified Kim et al., Wu et al., Pal, John et al., and Liu et al. system. This would provide a predictable result of changing the default protection. The use of no protection as default would allow the benefit of saving computing resources by not requiring the protection when in a secure location.
As per claims 2 and 16, the modified Kim et al., Wu et al., Pal, John et al., Liu et al., and Anderson et al. system discloses the authenticating includes storing a token in the memory to establish the authentication of the user to the remote health data server (see Pal paragraphs [0034]-[0036]).
As per claim 11, the modified Kim et al., Wu et al., Pal, John et al., Liu et al., and Anderson et al. system discloses enrolling the user by transmitting the member information to the remote health data server and associating the member information with the mirror at the remote health data server (see Kim et al. paragraphs [0035]-[0045]).
As per claim 12, the modified Kim et al., Wu et al., Pal, John et al., Liu et al., and Anderson et al. system discloses accessing medical information of the user via the remote health data server; and displaying a medical information progress update with respect to at least one medical condition of the user (see Kim et al. paragraphs [0038]-[0040]).
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Kim et al., Wu et al., Pal, John et al., Liu et al., and Anderson et al. system as applied to claims 2 and 16 above, and further in view of Prager (US 20210144008).
As per claims 3 and 17, the modified Kim et al., Wu et al., Pal, John et al., Liu et al., and Anderson et al. system discloses presenting the token to the remote health server and the use of facial recognition, but fails to disclose this is in response to identifying the use via at least one of facial recognition or voiceprint recognition.
However, Prager teaches the use of biometrics to unlock an encrypted password, i.e. token (see paragraphs [0076]-[0077]).
At a time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the biometric unlocking of Prager with facial recognition of the modified Kim et al., Wu et al., Pal, John et al., Liu et al., and Anderson et al. system.
Motivation, as recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, to do so would have been to ensure that only authorized users can unlock the token.
Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Kim et al., Wu et al., Pal, John et al., Liu et al., and Anderson et al. system as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view Ueno et al. (US20200249835).
As per claims 4 and 18, the modified Kim et al., Wu et al., Pal, John et al., Liu et al., and Anderson et al. system fails to explicitly disclose displaying a location of the NFC card reader on the screen in response to a determination that the user is attempting to log in to the smart mirror system.
However, Ueno et al. teaches displaying a location of the NFC card reader on the screen in response to a determination that the user is attempting to log in to the smart mirror system (see paragraph [0068]).
At a time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the NFC location in the smart mirror of the modified Kim et al., Wu et al., Pal, John et al., Liu et al., and Anderson et al. system.
Motivation, as recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, to do so would have been to make the system more user friendly.
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Kim et al., Wu et al., Pal, John et al., Liu et al., and Anderson et al. system as applied to claims 5 and 19 above, and further in view of Casey et al. (US 8638939).
As per claims 6 and 20, the modified Kim et al., Wu et al., Pal, John et al., Liu et al., and Anderson et al. system discloses determining whether the user is authorized to view text of the generated display; and in response to a determination that the user is not authorized to view the text of the generated display, obfuscating the text of the generated display, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein determining whether the user is authorized includes at least one of: displaying multiple images or multiple numbers in a random pattern on the screen, and receiving an input selection sequence of the multiple images of the multiple numbers from the user; and capturing a motion gesture of the user.
However, Casey et al. teaches determining whether the user is authorized to view text of the generated display; and in response to a determination that the user is not authorized to view the text of the generated display, obfuscating the text of the generated display (see column 18 lines 22-67), wherein determining whether the user is authorized includes at least one of: displaying multiple images or multiple numbers in a random pattern on the screen, and receiving an input selection sequence of the multiple images of the multiple numbers from the user; and capturing a motion gesture of the user (see column 16 line 64 through column 17 line 11).
At a time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the data protection and authentication of Casey et al. in the modified Kim et al., Wu et al., Pal, John et al., Liu et al., and Anderson et al. system.
Motivation, as recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, to do so would have been to add data protection at the smart mirror in addition to the server based authorization thereby increasing the security of the system.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Kim et al., Wu et al., Pal, John et al., Liu et al., and Anderson et al. system as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Griffiths (US 20140267166).
As per claim 7, the modified Kim et al., Wu et al., Pal, John et al., Liu et al., and Anderson et al. system discloses the screen comprises a liquid crystal display panel; the touch panel; and the smart mirror system further comprises at least one of a camera for capturing a facial image of the user and a microphone for capturing a voiceprint of the user (see Kim et al. paragraphs [0027]-[0029]), but fails to explicitly disclose the touch panel is an IR touch panel.
However, Griffiths teaches and infrared touch panel (see paragraphs [0048]-[0052]).
At a time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the touch panel of the modified Kim et al., Wu et al., Pal, John et al., Liu et al., and Anderson et al. system to be substituted with infrared touch panel of the Griffiths system with the predictable result of using light to detect touch events.
As per claims 8 and 9, the modified Kim et al., Wu et al., Pal, John et al., Liu et al., Anderson et al., and Griffiths system the mirror is a partially transparent mirror configured to allow images to be transmitted through the mirror from one direction while also reflecting images from the opposite direction, wherein the mirror is positioned over the liquid crystal display panel to allow a viewer to see images from the liquid crystal display panel through the mirror while also seeing a reflection of the viewer in the mirror (see Wu et al. paragraphs [0027]-[0031] and Pal paragraphs [0024]-[0025] and [0030]-[0036]).
As per claim 10, the modified Kim et al., Wu et al., Pal, John et al., Liu et al., Anderson et al., and Griffiths system the infrared touch panel includes light emitting diodes and sensors embedded in a bezel around the mirror; the light emitting diodes are configured to emit rows and columns of infrared light across a face of the mirror; and the sensors are configured to detect a touch when at least one of the rows and columns of infrared light is broken by an object (see Griffiths paragraphs [0048]-[0052]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Kim et al., Wu et al., Pal, John et al., Liu et al., and Anderson et al. system as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Shahin et al. (US 20170319148).
As per claim 13, the modified Kim et al., Wu et al., Pal, John et al., Liu et al., and Anderson et al. system discloses medical progress information, but fails to explicitly disclose the medical information progress update includes at least one of a weight change, an eye color change, a scoliosis therapy change, a body alignment change, or a muscle atrophy or muscle distribution change.
However, Shahin et al. teaches a smart mirror with medical information progress updates including at least one of a weight change, an eye color change, a scoliosis therapy change, a body alignment change, or a muscle atrophy or muscle distribution change (see paragraphs [0051]-[0053]).
At a time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the progress information of Shahin et al. in the modified Kim et al., Wu et al., Pal, John et al., Liu et al., and Anderson et al. system.
Motivation, as recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, to do so would have been to allow the user to detect changes in their body.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Kim et al., Wu et al., Pal, John et al., Liu et al., and Anderson et al. system as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Trehan (US 20220076666).
As per claim 14, the modified Kim et al., Wu et al., Pal, John et al., Liu et al., and Anderson et al. system fails to explicitly disclose displaying an animated version of the user to illustrate at least one stretching technique or exercise technique.
However, Trahan teaches displaying an animated version of the user to illustrate at least one stretching technique or exercise technique (see paragraph [0090]).
At a time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the animation of Trehan in the modified Kim et al., Wu et al., Pal, John et al., Liu et al., and Anderson et al. system.
Motivation to do so would have been to provide feedback to the user to help with the form of an exercise (see Trehan paragraph [0090]).
Double Patenting
The Amendment filed 07 November 2025 incorporates the subject matter that was identified as a different invention in the Restriction mailed 09 December 2022 in Application Number 17/123,273 which was the basis for the Divisional filing of the present application. Pursuant MPEP 804.02 “a nonstatutory double patenting rejection may also be avoided if consonance between the originally restricted inventions is maintained in a divisional application.” Since the consonance between the originally restricted inventions is no longer maintained, a nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,847,248. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘248 claims contain each of the gaze-based obfuscation limitations of the present claims and the remaining claim limitations are obvious over Kim et al., Wu et al., and Pal as put forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
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 MICHAEL J PYZOCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-3875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at (571) 270-3618. 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.
/Michael Pyzocha/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409