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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “and while the operation state of electronic apparatus is the vertical state: identify, based on data acquired through the sensor, whether a user is located within a predetermined distance of the electronic apparatus for a predetermined time, and when it is identified that the user is located within the predetermined distance of the electronic apparatus for the predetermined time, control the mirror display to be operated in the mirror state based on a user gaze location.”
The vertical state was described in the earlier part of the claim as “a vertical state, in which the mirror display is operated in a vertical orientation” This means that the mirror mode hasn’t changed while in vertical state and it was in “mirror state”. So how it is controlled the mirror display to be operated in the mirror state? In other word, if it was already in “mirror state”, there will be no change and therefore, no control. For the purpose of examining the claims on the merit, examiner will follow fig. 1 of the current application that shows, while horizontal, it shows display state “display mode” and when switching to vertical, mirror mode is activated where the gaze, the time as the claim recited. Both other independent claims have similar issues.
Claims 2-10, 12-14 and 16-20 are rejected because it depends on rejected claims.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobhviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 9-13, 15-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inada (WO 2020/241393; machine translation is included) in view of Kurbanova et al. (US 2021/0132795).
As to claim 1, Inada (fig. 4) teaches An electronic apparatus comprising: a mirror display (54) configured to be operated in a mirror state and a display state (fig. 5 of the translation; paragraph 8 starting with “with reference to FIG. 4”) ; a sensor (56); and at least one processor (11) configured to: switch an operation state of the electronic apparatus from a horizontal state (sensor 56 is the sensor that detects change in orientation and as seen in the paragraph mentioned above, that changes from display mode to mirror mode; page 5, paragraph 10), in which the mirror display is operated in a horizontal orientation, to a vertical state, in which the mirror display is operated in a vertical orientation (page 5, paragraph 8).
Inada does not expressly teach that while the operation state of electronic apparatus is the vertical state: identify, based on data acquired through the sensor, whether a user is located within a predetermined distance of the electronic apparatus for a predetermined time, and when it is identified that the user is located within the predetermined distance of the electronic apparatus for the predetermined time, control the mirror display to be operated in the mirror state based on a user gaze location.
Kurbanova (figures 5, 6A-6E) teaches a smart mirror with sensor fusion of camera vision (title). Kurbanova teaches switching between the mirror mode to display mode or vice versa is based on gaze, distant and a threshold time (par. 39; 42-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Kurbanova to be incorporated into Inada’s device to allow switching between the modes based on the gaze, time and distant so as motivated by Kurbanove, to enable gaze detection for determining user intent to switch the device (par. 51) which makes the device user friendly.
As to claim 2. The claim is substantially repeating claim 1 except for “identify whether a predetermined event has occurred for switching the mirror display to the mirror state, and when it is identified that the predetermined event for switching the mirror display to the mirror state has occurred” and “control the electronic apparatus to adjust reflectance of the mirror display based on an angle of the mirror display while the operation state of the electronic apparatus is switched from the horizontal state to the vertical state”
The event can be construed as having a person or multiple people as in Kurbanova (Figs. 6a-6E) having different distances; time to gaze and gaze or no gaze to switch between the modes. As for the reflectance, Inada and Kurbanova both teach reflective type mirror. It is inherent that when the angle changes, the reflectance will change (the inherent property of reflective service).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Kurbanova to be incorporated into Inada’s device to achieve the predictable result shown above (motivation is the same as in claim 1).
As to claim 3, the ambient image is a broad term. It is been construed by the examiner to mean that, the display will present whatever around (i.e, acting as mirror). Inada teaches when a power-off command is received while the mirror display is operated in the display state, control the mirror display to be operated in an ambient state of displaying an ambient image. (Inada teaches, in the display device 5 according to the third embodiment, as shown in FIG. 10, a film 54A having a high reflectance is attached to the surface of the display 54. The reflectance of the film 54A is close to 100% when there is no irradiation of light from the back surface. Therefore, when the display 54 is turned off, the display device 5 functions as a mirror by being reflected by the film 54A. This case is also included in the mirror mode of the display device 5).
As to claim 6, Inada teaches when the electronic apparatus is in the vertical state and the mirror display is operated in the mirror state, and a power-off command is received, control the mirror display to maintain the mirror state (Inada teaches, in the display device 5 according to the third embodiment, as shown in FIG. 10, a film 54A having a high reflectance is attached to the surface of the display 54. The reflectance of the film 54A is close to 100% when there is no irradiation of light from the back surface. Therefore, when the display 54 is turned off, the display device 5 functions as a mirror by being reflected by the film 54A. This case is also included in the mirror mode of the display device 5).
As to claim 7, the citation of Inada in claim 6 above reads on the limitation of claim 7.
As to claim 9, the claim is substantially similar to the limitation of claim 2 above and will be rejected similarly.
As to claim 10, Kurbanova teaches identify a user face location based on data acquired through the sensor, and control the mirror display to display information in an area corresponding to the identified user face location (Kurbanova (figures 5, 6A-6E) teaches a smart mirror with sensor fusion of camera vision (title). Kurbanova teaches switching between the mirror mode to display mode or vice versa is based on gaze, distant and a threshold time (par. 39; 42-43))
As to method claim 11 and Non-transitory computer readable medium claim 15; both claims are substantially similar to the apparatus claim 1 and will be rejected similarly as the rejection of apparatus claim 1 above.
As to claims 12 and 16, the claims are similar to claim 2 above.
As to claim 13, the claim is similar to claim 3 above.
As to claim 17, the claim is similar to claim 3.
As to claim 20, the claim is similar to claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 8, 14 and 18-19 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 and to overcome the current 112(b) rejection of its independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 13-3, 6-7, 9-13, 15-17 and 20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMR A AWAD whose telephone number is (571)272-7764. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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.
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.
/AMR A AWAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights