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, see page 5, filed 4/7/26, with respect to the title have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6 and 7, filed 4/7/26, with respect to claims 1 have been fully considered. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection has been withdrawn and a new 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection in view of U.S. patent application publication 2018/0157449 by Nobutani et al.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “face position information acquisition unit” should be “face recognition camera” . Appropriate correction is required.
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.
1) Claim(s) 1, 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2019/0098145 by Ii, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2018/0157449 by Nobutani et al.
2) Regarding claim 1, Ii teaches a recording device (figure 1, item 10; an MFP) including a movable panel unit provided in an angle adjustable manner and configured to be used to perform various operations (figure 1, item 13; a movable display panel), the recording device comprising: a panel rotation unit configured to rotate the movable panel unit to change an angle of the movable panel unit (figure 2, item 134; paragraph 33; panel adjustment motor moves the display to different angles); a face recognition camera configured to acquire information about a position of a face of a user (figure 2, item 133; paragraph 44; human sensor determines angle of human head and eyes [i.e. a face]); and a control unit, wherein the control unit rotates the panel rotation unit to adjust the angle of the movable panel unit based on the information acquired by the face recognition camera (paragraph 47; figure 5, Act5; processor controls the angle adjustment motor to put display at an optimal angle to face a user).
Ii does not specifically teach a face recognition camera configured to detect a human face within a captured image (eyes and head are detected but not specifically a face); a motion sensor configured to detect the user that uses the recording device, and when the motion sensor detects the user, the control changes the face recognition camera from a power OFF state to a power ON state.
Nobutani teaches a face recognition camera configured to detect a human face within a captured image (paragraph 38; camera performs facial recognition); a motion sensor configured to detect the user that uses the recording device, and when the motion sensor detects the user, the control changes the face recognition camera from a power OFF state to a power ON state (paragraphs 36 and 38; human sensor detection of movement can cause power to be supplied to other MFP units including a facial recognition camera).
Ii and Nobutani are combinable because they are both from the MFP human sensor field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Ii with Nobutani to add a motion sensor. The motivation for doing so would have been to be able to sense movement from an MFP low power mode (paragraph 36). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Ii with Nobutani to obtain the invention of claim 1.
3) Regarding claim 2, Ii teaches the recording device according to claim 1, wherein the face recognition camera is provided at the movable panel unit (figure 3, item 133; human sensor is a part of the movable display unit).
4) Regarding claim 4, Ii teaches the recording device according to claim 3, wherein when the motion sensor detects the user, the control unit rotates the movable panel unit to move the face recognition camera to a position at which the information is acquirable by the face recognition camera (figure 4; paragraphs 44-47; after approach of user is detected, panel automatically rotates to a position facing the eyes of the user).
5) Claim(s) 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2019/0098145 by Ii, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2018/0157449 by Nobutani et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2017/0180578 by Nimura.
6) Regarding claim 5, Ii does not specifically teach the recording device according to claim 1, wherein when information indicating that a load equal to or greater than a certain level is detected is sent while the panel rotation unit is driven to automatically adjust the angle of the movable panel unit, the control unit stops driving the panel rotation unit.
Nimura teaches the recording device according to claim 1, wherein when information indicating that a load equal to or greater than a certain level is detected is sent while the panel rotation unit is driven to automatically adjust the angle of the movable panel unit, the control unit stops driving the panel rotation unit (paragraphs 49 and 51; figure 7; automatic tilting motor is stopped [item S206] after tilt operation is detected in an error state [i.e. item in the way as per paragraph 47], “load” could be item in the way or just the timer).
Ii and Nimura are combinable because they are both from the MFP rotating display field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Ii with Nimura to add motor monitoring. The motivation for doing so would have been to notify a user of a tilting operation error. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Ii with Nimura to obtain the invention of claim 5.
7) Regarding claim 6, Nimura (as combined with Ii in the rejection of claim 5 above) teaches the recording device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to select an automatic adjustment mode in which the angle of the movable panel unit is automatically adjusted and a manual adjustment mode in which the angle of the movable panel unit is manually adjusted without using the automatic adjustment mode (paragraph 51; automatic mode can be set to manual mode when error is detected).
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 BENJAMIN O DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2874. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at (571)270-5254. 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.
BENJAMIN O. DULANEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/BENJAMIN O DULANEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights