DETAILED ACTION
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 9, 10, 14 and 15 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.
Applicant’s arguments, see response, filed 11 November 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 4-6 and 11-13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 4-6 and 11-13 has been withdrawn.
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(s) 1-3, 9, 10, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obeidat (US 9,652,091 B1) in view of Zhang (US 2020/0372189 A1).[claim 1]
Regarding claim 1, Obeidat discloses an electronic apparatus (e.g. Figures 1-3) comprising:
a display unit configured to detect contact with an object using a detector (Figures 1-3, 102, 206; touch sensitive display); and
a processor configured to change between a first power mode and a second power mode that consumes less power than the first power mode, based on a contact area size of an object on the display unit detected by the detector (Figure 3, 202; Figure 8; c. 3, ll. 32-44; c. 9, l. 36 – c. 10, l. 40; detecting contact area substantially larger than a fingertip and entering a body proximity state including turning off display and/or terminating touch input responses, i.e. first mode = display on and second mode = display off).
However, Obeidat does not disclose wherein the processor determines whether to change the first power mode to the second power mode based on the contact area size and contact time on the display unit.
Zhang discloses a similar electronic apparatus which detects contact with an object and teaches that a second power mode that consumes less power (e.g. turning off a touchscreen) based on contact area size (Figure 2, 2032) as well as contact time on the touch screen display unit (Paragraphs 0009, 0079, 0084-0085). By including a contact time such as touch duration in addition to touch area, the device may be made to turn off and conserve power in additional cases such as when a user places the device into a pocket or bag.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to further consider contact time in addition to contact area in determining when to enter the second power mode as taught by Zhang so that the device may be made to enter the second power mode in additional cases, thereby conserving power.[claim 2]
Regarding claim 2, Obeidat discloses wherein the processor causes the electronic apparatus to operate in the first power mode when determining that the contact area size is smaller than a predetermined size, and the processor causes the electronic apparatus to operate in the second power mode when determining that the contact area size is larger than the predetermined size (c. 9, l. 36 – c. 10, l. 40; note that the device does not enter the body proximity state until the contact larger than a predetermined size, i.e. size of a fingertip, is detected).[claim 3]
Regarding claim 3, Obeidat discloses wherein the processor determines whether or not a surface contact on the display unit is detected based on the contact area size, the processor causes the electronic apparatus to operate in the first power mode when determining that the surface contact is not detected, and the processor causes the electronic apparatus to operate in the second power mode when determining that the surface contact is detected (c. 9, l. 36 – c. 10, l. 40; note that the device does not enter the body proximity state until a surface contact larger than a predetermined size, i.e. size of a fingertip, is detected).[claim 9]
Regarding claim 9, Zhang discloses wherein the processor changes the first power mode to the second power mode when determining that the contact time is longer than a predetermined time (Paragraph 0084).[claim 10]
Regarding claim 10, Obeidat discloses wherein the processor may change the first power mode to the second power mode when determining that the number of surface contacts of the display unit detected based on the contact area size is larger than a predetermined number of times within a predetermined time (Figure 3, 202; Figure 8; c. 3, ll. 32-44; c. 9, l. 36 – c. 10, l. 40; detecting contact area substantially larger than a fingertip; note that the predetermined number of times and the predetermined time are not defined in the claim, thus detecting a contact area occurring any number of times N, where N is greater than some number M within an arbitrarily defined time period as taught by Obeidat would read on the claim as written; note that the claim as written does not require a determination that N contacts within a time period T has occurred prior to entering the second power mode, instead the claim merely requires that the entering of the power mode and M contacts occurring within a time period T occur together. Alternately stated, A when B does not require “if B then A”, instead it merely requires that A happens concurrent with B).[claim 14]
Claim 14 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 1. Therefore, claim 14 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.[claim 15]
Regarding claim 15, see the rejection of claim 1 and further note that Obeidat discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program as claimed (c. 3, ll. 32-44).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obeidat (US 9,652,091 B1) in view of Zhang (US 2020/0372189 A1) in view of Official Notice.[claim 7]
Regarding claim 7, Obeidat discloses the electronic apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a first image sensor configured to photoelectrically convert an optical image and to output first image data (c. 2, ll. 50-65); and an image processing unit configured to perform image processing for the first image data (c. 2, ll. 50-65; processing of image data such as to determine motion and receive gesture input), wherein the processor stops operating the display unit in the second power mode (see rejection of claim 1 above). However, Obeidat in view of Zhang does not explicitly disclose an optical system or wherein the processor stops operating the first image sensor and the image processing unit in the second power mode.
Official Notice is taken that it is well known in the art to provide optical systems for image sensors so that the image may be properly focused on the image sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide an optical system for the image sensors of Obeidat so as to properly focus images on the image sensors.
Official Notice is further taken that it is well known in the art to disable system components when they are not in use/needed for the current operation. Since Obeidat discloses entering a second mode, e.g. during a telephone call in which the device is placed next to a user’s cheek (c. 9, l. 36 – c. 10, l. 9), it would have been obvious to further disable image capture and processing components which are not in use to further reduce power consumption of the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 11-13 are allowed.[claims 4-6]
Regarding claims 4-6, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the electronic apparatus as claimed wherein a threshold for the contact area size includes a first threshold and a second threshold larger than the first threshold. While the prior art suggests a single threshold (see Obeidat above, i.e. larger than a fingertip), the prior art does not teach a system as claimed wherein a threshold for the contact area size includes a first threshold and a second threshold larger than the first threshold.[claims 11 and 12]
Regarding claims 11 and 12, while the prior art teaches a system including an image sensor (see Obeidat), the prior art does not explicitly teach or reasonably suggest electronic apparatus as claimed further comprising: a second image sensor configured to acquire second image data obtained by imaging a user; and a face detector configured to detect a face of the user the from the second image data, wherein the processor causes the electronic apparatus to operate in the first power mode when determining that the face of the user has been detected by the face detector, and the processor causes the electronic apparatus to operate in the second power mode in a case where the face of the user is not detected and a surface contact on the display unit is detected.[claim 13]
Regarding claim 13, while the prior art teaches determining a proximity of a user to a viewfinder and turning off a display in response, e.g. Shiozaki (US 2016/0195916 A1 – Figure 8) or Takei (US 20122/0124243 A1 – Figure 3), the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the electronic apparatus as claimed wherein the processor causes the electronic apparatus to operate in the second power mode when determining that proximity of an object to a viewfinder different from the display unit is detected and a surface contact on the display unit is detected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J HENN whose telephone number is (571)272-7310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday ~10-6.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at (571) 272-7406. 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.
/Timothy J Henn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639