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 . This action is made non-final.
Claims 1-10 and 19-28 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 19, and 20 are independent claims. Claims 11-18 have been canceled.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim to foreign priority of Chinese application CN202111384354.7 filed 11/19/2021. The instant application is a 371 of PCT/CN2022/128603 filed 10/31/2022.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 recites “wherein the processor executes” but “the processor” should be recited as “a processor”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Contingent Limitations
Section MPEP 2111.04(II) sets forth, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” The following are contingent limitations which are not required to be found in the prior art under broadest reasonable interpretation. This does not necessarily include contingent limitations which are required to be found in the prior art.
Claim 1 is a method claim. All limitations including and seceding “when the currently opened application is the preset application of the specified type” are contingent limitations because they are not required under certain conditions. For example, such limitations are not required when the currently opened application is not a preset application of a specified type. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 does not require these contingent limitations. Any mapping provided for these contingent limitations is for the sake of compact prosecution but is actually not required by the prior art to read on the claim.
Claim 5 is a method claim. All limitations including and seceding “when the currently opened application is the preset application of the specified type” are contingent and are not required when the currently opened application is not a preset application of a specified type. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 5 does not require these contingent limitations. Any mapping provided for this contingent limitation is for the sake of compact prosecution but is actually not required by the prior art to read on the claim.
Claim 6 is a method claim. The limitation “when the distance from the user's face to the screen of the mobile terminal is greater than or equal to the predetermined distance, waiting for a predetermined time to perform a next detection to detect the distance from the user's face to the screen of the mobile terminal” is a contingent limitation and is not required when the currently opened application is not the preset application of the specified type. It is also not required when the distance from the user's face to the screen of the mobile terminal is less than the predetermined distance (which would trigger the complementary contingent limitations in parent claim 1). Any mapping provided for this contingent limitation is for the sake of compact prosecution but is actually not required by the prior art to read on the claim.
Claim 7 is a method claim. The limitation “when the distance between the user's face and the screen of the mobile terminal is less than the predetermined distance, automatically popping up a floating window to prompt whether to enable the screen magnification function, and displaying an operation selection button of yes and no in the floating window” is contingent and is not required when the distance between the user's face and the screen of the mobile terminal is greater than or equal to the predetermined distance. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 7 does not require this contingent limitation. Any mapping provided for this contingent limitation is for the sake of compact prosecution but is actually not required by the prior art to read on the claim.
Claim 8 is a method claim. The limitation “wherein the predetermined distance is 20 centimeters, 15 centimeters, or 10 centimeters” further details the contingent limitations recited in parent claim 1. The limitation recited in claim 8 is not required when the currently opened application is not the preset application of the specified type. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 8 does not require this contingent limitation. Any mapping provided for this contingent limitation is for the sake of compact prosecution but is actually not required by the prior art to read on the claim.
Claim 9 is a method claim. The limitation “detecting the distance from the user's eye to the screen of the mobile terminal” further details the contingent limitations of claim 1. The limitation recited in claim 9 is not required when the currently opened application is not the preset application of the specified type. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 9 does not require this contingent limitation. Any mapping provided for this contingent limitation is for the sake of compact prosecution but is actually not required by the prior art to read on the claim.
Claim 10 is a method claim. The limitation “if the preset application of the specified type is detected to be closed, controlling the screen of the mobile terminal to display in a previous predetermined magnification rate before displaying the magnified image” further details the contingent limitations of claim 1. The limitation recited in claim 10 is not required when the currently opened application is not the preset application of the specified type. Furthermore, the limitation recited in claim 10 is also not required if the preset application of the specified type is not detected to be closed. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 10 does not require this contingent limitation. Any mapping provided for this contingent limitation is for the sake of compact prosecution but is actually not required by the prior art to read on the claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10, 19-23, 27, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grieves et al. (US 2021/0118410 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Grieves teaches a screen magnification processing method based on a mobile terminal ([0022-0023], [0031]: computing device implementing the magnifier and adaptive assistive technology unit/AATU may be a mobile phone), the method comprising:
detecting and obtaining an application opened by the mobile terminal, and determining whether the currently opened application is a preset application of a specified type ([0054]: “The magnifier unit 305 may also determine that the user is reading based on a type of application with which the user is engaged. Some applications may collectively be classified as “reading” applications even though the user may perform other related activities, such as editing or creating content or viewing non-text content in the application.”; [0063]: for example, “An application may provide information that indicates that the application is a reading type application. In one example, the user is reading a web-based article in a web browser, and the web browser can provide an indication that the user is reading content.”; [0070]: a preset application of a specified type is detected and obtained to implement controls via the magnifier unit 305. For example, an opened application is determined to be a web browser application of a “reading” type, as provided in [0063]);
when the currently opened application is the preset application of the specified type, obtaining a distance from a user's face to a screen of the mobile terminal (step 630 of FIG. 6 and [0043], FIGS. 4A-B and [0044-0047]: a distance from a user’s 150 face to screen/display 110 of computing device 105 is obtained);
when the distance from the user's face to the screen of the mobile terminal is less than a predetermined distance, automatically prompting whether to enable a screen magnification function (FIGS. 4A-B and [0044-0047]: As stated in [0047], “If the user is closer than a predetermined threshold distance from the display 110 of the computing device 105, then the magnifier unit 305 can be configured to determine that the user's face is close to the display 110 of the computing device 105. This proximity to the display 110 may indicate that the user may be suffering from visual impairment and is having difficulty viewing the contents of the display 110.”; steps 630-640 of FIG. 6, [0043], and [0052-0054]: based on the distance being less than a predetermined distance, the system automatically prompts whether to enable a screen magnification function; [0062-0063]: for example, the magnifier unit 305, having determined that the user is suffering from visual impairment at step 630, then determines if the user appears to be reading. This determination corresponds to the automatic prompting of whether a screen magnification function should be enabled); and
when the user selects to enable the screen magnification function, controlling the mobile terminal screen to display a magnified image in a predetermined magnification rate (steps 630-640 of FIG. 6, [0054], [0063]: continuing the example, having determined that the user appears to be reading, the screen displays a magnified image; [0026]: the magnified image is displayed in a predetermined magnification rate. “User proximity to the device may also be used to control the magnification level applied by the magnifier. In some implementations, the magnifier may increase the magnification in response to the user getting closer to the display of the computing device and decrease the magnification in response to the user moving farther away from the display.”; For further details regarding the predetermined magnification rate, see FIGS. 4A-B and [0058]).
Regarding claim 2, Grieves further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein before the detecting and obtaining an application opened by the mobile terminal, and determining whether the currently opened application is a preset application of a specified type, the method further comprises:
setting the preset application of the specified type on the mobile terminal in advance ([0054], [0062-0063], and [0070]: certain applications are designated as “reading” applications in advance, including the preset application), wherein the preset application of the specified type comprises a browser application, a chat application, and a reading application ([0054]: “Examples of reading applications may include a text editor or document editor, a web browser, a document viewer, a electronic book (e-book) reader application, an email application, or a messaging application. Other types of applications may also be classified as reading applications.”).
Regarding claim 3, Grieves further teaches the method of claim 2, wherein before the detecting and obtaining an application opened by the mobile terminal, and determining whether the currently opened application is a preset application of a specified type, the method further comprises:
setting a shortcut menu item on the mobile terminal in advance to automatically prompt whether to enable the screen magnification function when the preset application of the specified type is detected ([0055]: “The user may also manually launch the magnifier by entering a launch command via a keyboard, via a voice interface, or by selecting the magnifier unit from a menu of applications available to the user on the computing device 105.” Thus, the magnifier unit may be selected from a menu of applications/shortcut menu, the magnifier unit used to automatically prompt whether to enable the screen magnification function when the preset application of the specified type is detected).
Regarding claim 4, Grieves further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the step of detecting and obtaining the application opened by the mobile terminal, and determining whether the currently opened application is the preset application of the specified type comprises:
real-time detecting an application opened by the mobile terminal; and
comparing the currently-opened application with the preset application of the specified type to determine whether the currently-opened application is the preset application of the specified type ([0054]: “The magnifier unit 305 may also determine that the user is reading based on a type of application with which the user is engaged. Some applications may collectively be classified as “reading” applications even though the user may perform other related activities, such as editing or creating content or viewing non-text content in the application.” A user’s current engagement with an application indicates detection of an opened application in real-time; [0063]: for example, “An application may provide information that indicates that the application is a reading type application. In one example, the user is reading a web-based article in a web browser, and the web browser can provide an indication that the user is reading content… In yet another example, the user may have multiple applications open on the desktop including a document editor and an image editor program. The operating system may provide an indication to the magnifier unit 305 that the document editor has focus, and the head and/or eye movements include lateral movements that indicate that the user may be reading. The magnifier unit 305 may determine that the reading mode of the magnifier should be activated in this situation.”; [0070]: a preset application of a specified type is detected and obtained to implement controls via the magnifier unit 305. For example, an opened application is determined to be a web browser application of a “reading” type, as provided in [0063]).
Regarding claims 5-10, as explained above, the claims consist of non-required contingent limitations and are thus anticipated by Grieves.
Regarding claims 19 and 21-23, the claims recite a mobile terminal, comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable by the processor (FIG. 11 and [0121-0128]), wherein the processor executes the computer program to perform operations corresponding to the method of claims 1-4, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same premises.
Regarding claims 20, 27, and 28, the claims recite a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a computer program, wherein the processor executes the computer program ([0110], FIG. 11 and [0121-0128]) to perform operations corresponding to the method of claims 1-3, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same premises.
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) 5 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grieves et al. (US 2021/0118410 A1), in view of Fang (US 2024/0004982 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Grieves further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the step of obtaining the distance from the user's face to the screen of the mobile terminal when the currently opened application is the preset application of the specified type comprises:
when the currently opened application is the preset application of the specified type ([0054], [0063], and [0070]), turning on a front camera of the mobile terminal and setting the front camera to be in a low-power operation mode (step 620 of FIG. 6 and [0042] and FIGS. 4A-B and [0044-0047]: a distance from a user’s 150 face to screen/display 110 of computing device 105 is obtained; See front camera example of FIGS. 1A and 1C which has camera 120 integrated with the display 110. Note in paragraph [0031], “Other types of computing devices may be used to implement the magnifier. The computing device may be tablet computer, a mobile phone or smart phone, a smart television, and/or other types of computing devices that include a display and either include one or more integrated cameras and/or are associated with one or more cameras that can be used to capture images and/or video of a user of the computing device.”);
controlling the front camera to obtain a current picture of the mobile terminal, and obtaining and detecting the distance from the user's face to the screen of the mobile terminal (steps 620-630 of FIG. 6 and [0042-0043], FIGS. 4A-B and [0044-0047]: current picture is obtained and distance from the user’s face to the screen is obtained and detected);
and
determining whether the distance from the user's face to the screen of the mobile terminal is less than the predetermined distance (FIGS. 4A-B and [0044-0047]: As stated in [0047], “If the user is closer than a predetermined threshold distance from the display 110 of the computing device 105, then the magnifier unit 305 can be configured to determine that the user's face is close to the display 110 of the computing device 105. This proximity to the display 110 may indicate that the user may be suffering from visual impairment and is having difficulty viewing the contents of the display 110.”; steps 630-640 of FIG. 6, [0043], and [0052-0054]: based on the distance being less than a predetermined distance, the system automatically prompts whether to enable a screen magnification function; [0062-0063]: for example, the magnifier unit 305, having determined that the user is suffering from visual impairment at step 630, then determines if the user appears to be reading. This determination corresponds to the automatic prompting of whether a screen magnification function should be enabled).
Grieves does not explicitly teach setting the front camera to be in a low-power operation mode.
Fang teaches setting the front camera to be in a low-power operation mode ([0282]: “For example, an authentication manner of local continuous authentication is facial recognition, and the detection range of local continuous authentication of the electronic device 100 is a photographing range of a camera with low power consumption that is configured to collect a face image”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Grieves by incorporating the teachings of Fang so as to include setting the front camera to be in a low-power operation mode. Doing so would conserve energy resources of the camera, thereby allowing the user to make more effective use of their mobile device, with which the camera is integrated and shares power, for more critical functions, like executing applications.
Regarding claim 24, the claim recites a mobile terminal corresponding to the method of claim 5 and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grieves et al. (US 2021/0118410 A1), in view of Gu (US 6002386 A).
Regarding claim 8, Grieves teaches the method of claim 1.
Grieves does not explicitly teach wherein the predetermined distance is 20 centimeters, 15 centimeters, or 10 centimeters.
Gu teaches wherein the predetermined distance is 30 centimeters (Col. 3, lines 34-47 and Col. 4, lines 7-39: a predetermined distance of 30 cm, for instance, between the user and the display screen controls display configuration for the display screen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Grieves by incorporating the teachings of Gu so as to include wherein the predetermined distance is 30 centimeters. Doing so would ensure that a reasonable distance from the screen triggers display operations, such as screen magnification, for increased effectiveness. This would preclude a larger predetermined distance which may unnecessarily prompt screen magnification when the user does not actually need it.
Although Grieves in view of Gu does not explicitly teach wherein the predetermined distance is 20 centimeters, 15 centimeters, or 10 centimeters, it would be obvious to try the claimed centimeter values in light of the 30 centimeters exemplified in Gu. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. First, there is a recognized problem in the art that a user’s distance to the screen may require adjustments to display operations: In Grieves, a shorter distance prompts screen magnification and, in Gu, a shorter distance similarly prompts display changes. Both Grieves and Gu measure the distance between the user and the screen to ultimately improve comfort for the user’s viewing experience with the display screen. Second, there is a finite number of centimeters less than 30. Third, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued more stringent predetermined distances less than 30 centimeters, including the claimed 20 centimeters, 15 centimeters, or 10 centimeters, to trigger screen magnification as shorter distances indicate a higher likelihood of a user experiencing visual impairment. These lower predetermined distances of claimed 20 centimeters, 15 centimeters, or 10 centimeters may further reduce the likelihood of unintentional screen magnification compared to the higher predetermined distance of 30 centimeters. For example, if the predetermined distance is 30 centimeters, a distance of 25 centimeters between the user and the screen would trigger screen magnification, even when the user using the mobile device may not need screen magnification at that distance. By using a lower predetermined distance like 20 centimeters, 15 centimeters, or 10 centimeters, such cases for unnecessary screen magnification may be prevented.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grieves et al. (US 2021/0118410 A1), in view of Sinha (US 2021/0233500 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Grieves teaches the method of claim 1.
Although Grieves teaches detecting the user's eye as part of the screen magnification process (FIGS. 5A-C and [0049-0050]: as supported in [0049], “The magnifier unit may be configured to detect the user's eyes in the images and/or video captured by the camera 120 of the computing device 105. FIG. 5A illustrates the field of view 405 of FIG. 4A but includes bounding boxes 510a and 510b surrounding the eyes of the user 150. FIG. 5B illustrates the field of view 405 of FIG. 4B but includes bounding boxes 510a and 510b surrounding the eyes of the user 150. The head-pose estimation neural network may be configured to identify the location of the user's eyes and to provide the user's eye location information with the head position information output by the neural network.”), Grieves does not explicitly teach detecting the distance from the user's eye to the screen of the mobile terminal
Sinha teaches detecting the distance from the user's eye to the screen of the mobile terminal (FIG. 8 and [0046-0050]: as seen in operation 808, distance from the user’s eye to the screen is detected).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Grieves by incorporating the teachings of Sinha so as to include detecting the distance from the user's eye to the screen of the mobile terminal. Doing so would offer greater precision as the user’s eye can be more indicative of the user’s view than the user’s face or head. By using the distance from the user’s eye to the screen, the user’s vision of the screen can be more reliably approximated to more effectively control screen magnification.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25 and 26 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, including:
US 2014/0137054 A1: using front-facing camera to calculate distance between face and mobile device to make adjustments to the visual display
US 9160915 B1: operational parameter, such as zooming, may be controlled based on predefined association with an application currently executed
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7AM to 5PM.
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, KIEU D VU can be reached on (571)272-4057. 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.
/KENNY NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights