DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 the Application
2. This application, filed June 11, 2024, is the national stage entry of PCT/JP2022/043663, filed November 28, 2022. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
4. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“display control unit,” in claims 1 and 20;
“display unit,” in claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20;
“determination unit,” in claims 1, 5, 9, 11, 12, 16-18, and 20;
“output control unit,” in claims 1-3, 5-11, 17, and 20; and
“measurement unit,” in claims 12-15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 2, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wan et al. (US 2008/0309757 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wan discloses:
a display device ([0023]; Fig. 3: 22) comprising:
a display control unit that displays a video on a display unit ([0037]; FIG. 8: 335);
a determination unit that determines whether or not a person visually recognizing the display unit is closer to the display unit than at a predetermined distance based on information acquired by a sensor ([0029], [0030]; FIG. 5: 222); and
an output control unit that outputs a first warning to the person when the determination unit determines that the person is closer to the display unit than at a predetermined distance ([0031]; FIG. 6: 224).
Regarding claim 2, Wan discloses that after the first warning is output, the output control unit outputs a first warning screen on which an instruction to move away from the display unit is displayed as a second warning based on information acquired from the sensor. ([0030]; FIG. 5: 223)
Regarding claim 19, Wan discloses a method ([0003]); otherwise, claim 19 is rejected as claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Wan discloses a display program causing a computer to function ([0028]); the remainder of claim 20 is rejected as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan in view of Leung (US 2016/0026241 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Wan does not disclose that the determination unit determines whether or not the person continues to be closer to the display unit than at a predetermined distance for a predetermined time after the first warning is output, and the output control unit outputs a second warning to the person when the determination unit determines that the person continues to be closer to the display unit than at a predetermined distance for a predetermined time.
Leung, in the same field of display devices, teaches a system and method for monitoring habits (including posture) of a registered user of an electronic device, and an electronic device including or otherwise making use of such system ([0002]), wherein a determination unit determines whether or not the person continues to be closer to the display unit than at a predetermined distance for a predetermined time after the first warning is output, and the output control unit outputs a second warning to the person when the determination unit determines that the person continues to be closer to the display unit than at a predetermined distance for a predetermined time ([0072]; FIG 5: 104, 105, 106) for the benefit of increasing the alerting effect to warn the user to pay attention to the viewing distance ([0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Leung with the device of Wan because that would have enabled the device to increase the alerting effect to warn the user to pay attention to the viewing distance.
9. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan.
Regarding claim 7, Wan does not explicitly disclose that the output control unit outputs a voice instruction to move away from the display unit together with the first warning screen, but Wan does disclose the first warning screen (see the rejection of claim 1), Wan does disclose a loudspeaker unit that sends out a warning information ([0031]; FIG. 6: 224), and Wan does disclose that the prior art discloses a voice instruction to move away from the display screen ([0008]) for the benefit of disturbing the person watching the screen when the person is too close to the screen ([0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have configured the device of Wan in the foregoing manner because that would have enabled the device to disturb the person watching the screen when the person is too close to the screen.
10. Claims 12, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan in view of Aizawa (US 2012/0147156 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Wan discloses that the determination unit determines whether or not a person visually recognizing the display unit is closer to the display unit than at the predetermined distance by using the distance set by the measurement unit as the predetermined distance. (See the citations for the rejection of claim 1.)
Wan does not disclose:
a measurement unit that, when receiving a measurement request, measures a distance from a person located in a detection range of the sensor to the display unit based on information acquired by the sensor and sets the distance that has been measured as the predetermined distance
Aizawa, in the same field of display devices, teaches a display control apparatus suitably used for, for example, stereoscopic training a display control method, and a program ([0002]), comprising:
a measurement unit that, when receiving a measurement request, measures a distance from a person located in a detection range of the sensor to the display unit based on information acquired by the sensor and sets the distance that has been measured as the predetermined distance,
([0074]) for the benefit that a value of the threshold at which blurring is generated, may be changed based on a measured distance ([0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Aizawa with the device of Wan because that would have enabled the device to change a value of the threshold at which blurring is generated based on a measured distance.
Regarding claim 13, the above combination does not disclose that when receiving the measurement request, the measurement unit measures a distance from a person located in a detection range of an image sensor to the display unit based on analysis of an image captured by the image sensor.
Aizawa, in the same field of display devices, teaches a display control apparatus suitably used for, for example, stereoscopic training a display control method, and a program ([0002]), wherein when receiving the measurement request, the measurement unit measures a distance from a person located in a detection range of an image sensor to the display unit based on analysis of an image captured by the image sensor ([0074]) for the benefit that a value of the threshold at which blurring is generated, may be changed based on a measured distance ([0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Aizawa with the device of Wan because that would have enabled the device to change a value of the threshold at which blurring is generated based on a measured distance.
Regarding claim 14, the above combination does not disclose that that when receiving a predetermined distance setting request after measurement, the measurement unit sets the distance that has been measured as the predetermined distance.
Aizawa, in the same field of display devices, teaches a display control apparatus suitably used for, for example, stereoscopic training a display control method, and a program ([0002]), wherein when receiving a predetermined distance setting request after measurement, the measurement unit sets the distance that has been measured as the predetermined distance ([0074]) for the benefit that a value of the threshold at which blurring is generated, may be changed based on a measured distance ([0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Aizawa with the device of Wan because that would have enabled the device to change a value of the threshold at which blurring is generated based on a measured distance.
11. Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan in view of Lai (US 2012/0127325 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Wan does not disclose that the determination unit determines whether or not the person is closer to the display unit than at a predetermined distance based on analysis of an image captured by an image sensor.
Lai, in the same field of display devices, teaches a web camera device whereby the web camera device can keep a proper distance between eyes of the users and a display ([0008]), wherein a determination unit determines whether or not the person is closer to the display unit than at a predetermined distance based on analysis of an image captured by an image sensor ([0058], [0061], [0064]; FIG. 4: 420) for the benefit that the distance between the user and web camera is calculated based on a head image, which is approximately equal to the distance between the eyes of the user and the display ([0030], [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Lai with the device of Wan because that would have enabled the device to calculate the distance between the user and web camera based on a head image, which is approximately equal to the distance between the eyes of the user and the display.
Regarding claim 18, Lai further teaches:
an image sensor that is disposed so as to be close to the display unit and that images a direction facing the display unit ([0032]),
wherein the determination unit determines whether or not the person is closer to the display unit than at a predetermined distance based on analysis of an image captured by the image sensor that is provided ([0058], [0061], [0064]; FIG. 4: 420),
for the benefit that the distance between the user and web camera is calculated based on a head image, which is approximately equal to the distance between the eyes of the user and the display ([0030], [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Lai with the device of Wan because that would have enabled the device to calculate the distance between the user and web camera based on a head image, which is approximately equal to the distance between the eyes of the user and the display.
12. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan and Lai further in view of Huang (US 2015/0190048 A1).
Regarding claim 17, the above combination does not disclose:
the determination unit determines whether or not a person recognized in the image is visually recognizing the display unit based on estimation of a skeleton of the person and
the output control unit outputs a first warning to the person when the determination unit determines that the person is closer to the display unit than at a predetermined distance and that the person is visually recognizing the display unit.
Huang, in the same field of display devices, teaches a computer with a video monitor, a video camera, and a human-user input device ([0049]), wherein:
the determination unit determines whether or not a person recognized in the image is visually recognizing the display unit based on estimation of a skeleton of the person ([0118], [0127]), and
the output control unit outputs a first warning to the person when the determination unit determines that the person is closer to the display unit than at a predetermined distance and that the person is visually recognizing the display unit ([0127]),
for the benefit that the system measures the viewing distance when the image of the face may be captured by a camera and displayed in an eye monitor area ([0127]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Huang with the display of the above combination because that would have enabled the display to measure the viewing distance when the image of the face may be captured by a camera and displayed in an eye monitor area.
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claim 3 is 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.
Claims 4, 6, and 8 are objected to for the same reasons as claim 3 because claims 4, 6, and 9 depend from claim 3.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 10 is 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.
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 10 because claim 11 depends from claim 10.
Claim 15 is 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
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F MORTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-1873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-7 ET.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/JOHN F MORTELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689