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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-7,11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Given(US 6282655).
Claim 1: Given disclose a sensor; and a controller in (fig.1, motion sensor 100 and controller 210). Given disclose wherein the controller is configured to monitor, based on signals from the sensor, presence of a user in front of the sensor, to determine, based on the signals from the sensor, that a user is not present in front of the sensor and, in response to determining that the user is not present in front of the sensor based on the sensor signals, to transmit a keystroke code to a computer, wherein the keystroke code is configured to cause the computer to implement a computer lock in (col.2,lines 63-67; col.3,lines 8-11: motion/proximity sensor monitors presence of user where as soon as the user leaves the immediate vicinity of the computer, the motion sensor senses the absence of the use and the controller immediately sends a command sequence or artificial keystroke to the computer to put it into a security shutdown mode such as enabling workstation lockup with a password protected screen saver. Mode where a series of keystrokes are sent after an optional timing period to the workstation to immediately lock it down should the detector sense the lack of a person at the workstation.)
Claim 2: Given disclose the computer interprets the keystroke code as being keystrokes, the computer lock is a screen lock and wherein the computer implements the screen lock in response to receiving the keystroke code from the controller in (col.2,lines 43-62).
Claim 3: Given disclose the keystroke code denotes a simultaneous selection of multiple keys that is defined as a screen lock code by an operating system of the computer in (col.2,lines 28-49).
Claim 4: Given disclose wherein the sensor and the controller are integrated into the keyboard which is coupled to the computer and wherein the keystroke code is transmitted by the controller to the computer via an interface with which the keyboard is coupled to the computer in (fig.2).
Claim 5: Given disclose a display device coupled to the computer, wherein the sensor is mounted on the display device in (fig.1,2).
Claim 6: Given disclose the controller is configured to monitor a distance of the user from the sensor and to determine that the user is not present within a predefined distance of the sensor in (col.1,lines 50-63,col.2,lines 5-24).
Claim 7: Given disclose user is not present within the predefined distance of the sensor for a time interval selected by the user in (col.4,lines 1-17).
Claim 11: Given disclose monitoring presence of a user in front of a sensor in (col.2,lines 5-16). Given disclose determining, based on signals from the sensor, that a user is not present in front of the sensor; and in response to determining that the user is not present in front of the sensor based on the sensor signals, transmitting a keystroke code to a computer, wherein the keystroke code is configured to cause the computer to implement a computer lock in (col.2,lines 63-67; col.3,lines 8-11: motion/proximity sensor monitors presence of user where as soon as the user leaves the immediate vicinity of the computer, the motion sensor senses the absence of the use and the controller immediately sends a command sequence or artificial keystroke to the computer to put it into a security shutdown mode such as enabling workstation lockup with a password protected screen saver. Mode where a series of keystrokes are sent after an optional timing period to the workstation to immediately lock it down should the detector sense the lack of a person at the workstation.)
Claim 12: Given disclose computer lock is a screen lock in (col.3,lines 8-11).
Claim 13: Given disclose the keystroke code denotes a simultaneous selection of multiple keys that is defined as a screen lock code by an operating system of the computer in (col.2,lines 28-49).
Claim 14: Given disclose wherein the sensor is integrated into the keyboard which is coupled to the computer and wherein the keystroke code is transmitted by the controller to the computer via an interface with which the keyboard is coupled to the computer in (fig.2).
Claim 15: Given disclose a display device coupled to the computer, wherein the sensor is mounted on the display device in (fig.1,2).
Claim 16: Given disclose monitoring a distance of the user from the sensor and the determining comprises determining that the user is not present within a predefined distance of the sensor in (col.1,lines 50-63,col.2,lines 5-24).
Claim 17: Given disclose determining that the user is not present within the predefined distance of the sensor comprises determining that the user is not present within the predefined distance of the sensor for a time interval selected by the user in (col.1,lines 50-60; col.2,lines 63-67).
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.
Claim(s) 8,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Given(US 6282655) in view of Milito et al(US 2021/0342435).
Claims 8,18: Given does not specifically disclose controller is configured to recognize a face of the user. Milito disclose user facial recognition in (page 3[0030]). It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made employ facial recognition as taught in Milito with system of Given to provide seamless user experience since authentication occurs as soon as system detects user face without typing credentials. Further, facial recognition unlike passwords is far harder to guess or share thus enhancing overall system security.
Claim(s) 10,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Given(US 6282655) in view of Gillian et al(US 2021/0365124).
Claims 10,20: Given does not specifically disclose sensor is a radar sensor. Gillian disclose radar sensor in(page 10[0109]). It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to employ radar sensor as taught in Gillian with sensor system of Given since radar sensor detects motion and range using radio waves it is unaffected by lighting conditions therefore providing high accuracy of range and motion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9,19 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
USPTO Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSUK SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3857. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 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, Joseph Hirl can be reached at 571-272-3685. 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.
/HOSUK SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435