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 .
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 10-11, 13-14, 20-21, 23, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (Pub. No.: US 20140191664 A1), hereafter Johnson in view of Jang (Pub. No.: KR 101318079 B1, machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson teaches a device (FIG. 3, master control systems 202) comprising a processor (FIG. 3, PROCESSOR 206), wherein the processor is configured to be connected with an electrical component (FIG. 3, LIGHT UNIT 218) and a proximity sensor (FIG. 3, INPUT DRVICES 216, and paragraph [0031], “The use of "user control" means an input device, sensor, or other system for allowing a user to control a component or system”, and paragraph [0029], “proximity sensors”), and wherein the processor is configured to control a setting of the electrical component in dependence on a sensor output corresponding to an activation intensity within an activation intensity range (paragraph [0085], “A first exemplary sensor comprises a proximity sensor which detects the presence of nearby objects without any physical contact …. a user holding his/her hand over the sensor and then moving his/her hand vertically away from the sensor could cause an increase the luminal intensity of the light element, whereas moving his/her hand vertically towards the sensor could cause a decrease in the luminal intensity of the light element”).
Johnson further teaches wherein the processor is configured to adjust the activation intensity and/or activation intensity range (paragraph [0067], “The master control unit 33 configured for controlling the operation of the light unit 96, e.g., turning the light unit 96 on and off, switching between and/or selecting light sources, increasing/decreasing the brightness/intensity of the light sources”).
But does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to adjust the activation intensity and/or activation intensity range in dependence on an intensity indicative of ambient conditions.
Jang teaches the processor is configured to adjust the activation intensity and/or activation intensity range in dependence on an intensity indicative of ambient conditions (page 11, lines 6-9, “a backlight control unit that detects the brightness of the surrounding environment and adjusts the brightness of the backlight unit according to the brightness of the surrounding environment”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson in view of Jang to incorporate the feature of adjust the activation intensity and/or activation intensity range in dependence on an intensity indicative of ambient conditions that can improve side narrow viewing angle performance by adaptively adjusting the backlight brightness according to the brightness of the surrounding environment (Jang, page 16, lines 12-13).
Regarding claim 3, Johnson as modified above further teaches said activation intensity range corresponds to an object being within a distance range of a particular activation position (paragraph [0113]).
Regarding claim 4, Johnson as modified above further teaches the processor is configured to control a setting of the electrical component in dependence on a duration of the sensor output (paragraph [0085], “a user swiping his/her hand over the sensor a first time could turn the light unit on, and a second time could turn the light unit off; a user holding his/her hand over the sensor for a predetermined period of time (e.g., three (3) seconds) could trigger the light unit to switch between light elements illuminated; and a user holding his/her hand over the sensor and then moving his/her hand vertically away from the sensor could cause an increase the luminal intensity of the light element, whereas moving his/her hand vertically towards the sensor could cause a decrease in the luminal intensity of the light element”).
Regarding claim 6, Johnson as modified above further teaches the processor is configured to control settings in dependence on a minimum time interval over which the sensor output is detected (paragraph [0085]).
Regarding claim 10, Johnson as modified above further teaches the setting or settings comprise; on and off (paragraph [0085], “a user swiping his/her hand over the sensor a first time could turn the light unit on, and a second time could turn the light unit off”).
Regarding claim 11, Johnson as modified above further teaches the setting or settings comprise brightness levels and/or colours of at least one light source (paragraph [0085], “a user holding his/her hand over the sensor and then moving his/her hand vertically away from the sensor could cause an increase the luminal intensity of the light element, whereas moving his/her hand vertically towards the sensor could cause a decrease in the luminal intensity of the light element”).
Regarding claim 13, Johnson as modified above further teaches the processor is configured to act in dependence on differing sensor conditions (paragraph [0085]-[0091], shows different sensors actioning according sensors like proximity, capacitive , microphone, RFID, Infrared, accelerometer, gyroscopic).
Regarding claim 14, Johnson as modified above further teaches the processor is configured to adjust the activation and intensity/or activation intensity range in dependence on detection of at least of (i) a baseline sensor condition, (ii) ambient air conditions, (iii) visible light levels or temperature (paragraph [0096], “a control sensor for operating the light unit (e.g., turning the light unit on and off, adjusting the brightness of the light emitted by the light unit)”).
Regarding claim 20, Johnson as modified above further teaches the device is configured for clinical use and/or is formed of wipe-clean materials (paragraph [0002], “dental lighting instruments”).
Regarding claim 21, Johnson as modified above further teaches comprising the electrical component, preferably wherein the electrical component is a lighting component, a heating component (FIG. 3, 218), a dental tool component (paragraph [0002], “dental lighting instruments”), an audio component, a camera component, a display component, a cooling component, a cleaning component and/or a curing tool component.
Regarding claim 23, Johnson teaches a method comprising:
controlling a setting of an electrical component (FIG. 3, 218) in dependence on a sensor output corresponding to an activation intensity within an activation intensity range (paragraph [0085], “A first exemplary sensor comprises a proximity sensor which detects the presence of nearby objects without any physical contact …. a user holding his/her hand over the sensor and then moving his/her hand vertically away from the sensor could cause an increase the luminal intensity of the light element, whereas moving his/her hand vertically towards the sensor could cause a decrease in the luminal intensity of the light element”).
Johnson further teaches adjusting the activation intensity and/or activation intensity range (paragraph [0067], “The master control unit 33 configured for controlling the operation of the light unit 96, e.g., turning the light unit 96 on and off, switching between and/or selecting light sources, increasing/decreasing the brightness/intensity of the light sources”).
But does not explicitly disclose adjusting the activation intensity and/or activation intensity range in dependence on an intensity indicative of ambient conditions.
Jang teaches adjusting the activation intensity and/or activation intensity range in dependence on an intensity indicative of ambient conditions (page 11, lines 6-9, “a backlight control unit that detects the brightness of the surrounding environment and adjusts the brightness of the backlight unit according to the brightness of the surrounding environment”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson in view of Jang to incorporate the feature of adjusting the activation intensity and/or activation intensity range in dependence on an intensity indicative of ambient conditions that can improve side narrow viewing angle performance by adaptively adjusting the backlight brightness according to the brightness of the surrounding environment (Jang, page 16, lines 12-13).
Regarding claim 26, Johnson teaches a non-transitory computer program product (FIG. 3, MAIN MEMORY 208) comprising computer implementable instructions for causing a programmable computer device to carry out the method of claim 23 (paragraph [0048], “main memory 208 may be used for storing temporary variables or other intermediate information during execution of instructions to be executed by processor 206”).
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.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson and Jang as applied to claim 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Chen (Pub. No.: US 20150108904 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Johnson teaches limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose said activation intensity range is a range either side of the activation intensity.
Chen teaches said activation intensity range is a range either side of the activation intensity (FIG. 3B and paragraph [0064], “the microcontroller 12 receives a high voltage H or a low voltage L from the infrared ray sensor 11, wherein the time length Ts of the low voltage sensing signal is about the time length which the user's hand stays within the infrared ray detecting zone”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson and Jang in view of Chen to incorporate activation intensity range for a time period to select desired performance function (Chen, paragraph [0063]).
Regarding claim 7, Johnson teaches limitations of claim 4 but does not disclose the processor is configured to effect different actions in dependence on the duration over which the sensor output is detected.
Chen teaches the processor is configured to effect different actions in dependence on the duration over which the sensor output is detected (paragraph [0069], “if the time length Ts of the low voltage sensing signal is shorter than the preset time To, the microcontroller 12 operates either in on/off switch mode or in color temperature tuning mode (or dimming control mode). If the detected time length Ts of the low voltage sensing signal is longer than n times the preset time To, the microcontroller 12 changes its program execution from the on/off switch mode into the color temperature tuning mode (or the dimming control mode) and vice versa”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson and Jang in view of Chen to incorporate different actions in dependence on the duration over which the sensor output so that the microcontroller 12 changes the current function mode to another one function mode (Chen, paragraph [0069]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson and Jang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Law (Pub. No.: EP 3133903 A2).
Regarding claim 8, Johnson teaches limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose the processor is configured to cycle a step through a cycle of settings in dependence on the sensor output.
Law teaches the processor is configured to cycle a step through a cycle of settings in dependence on the sensor output (paragraph [0029], “if the microprocessor detects that the button is pushed and immediately released, then it may be configured to cycle to the next lighting mode. The microprocessor may also be configured to cycle to the next lighting mode 904 upon detecting that a hand gesture has been performed 908. In some embodiments, the user may be able to suppress a button for a length of time. For example, if the microprocessor determines that the button has been suppressed for more than 5 seconds, then the microprocessor may be configured to turn the portable lighting device off. Additionally, the microprocessor may be configured to skip lighting modes upon detecting particular conditions”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson and Jang in view of Law to incorporate the feature, the processor is configured to cycle a step through a cycle of settings in dependence on the sensor output to cycle through various lighting modes 9 in response to detecting one or more user interactions (Law, paragraph [0029])
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson and Jang as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (Pub. No US 20180032815 A1), hereafter Lee.
Regarding claim 16, Johnson teaches limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose the proximity sensor comprises an iris configured to attenuate radiation.
Lee teaches the proximity sensor comprises an iris configured to attenuate radiation (paragraph [0122], “The iris authentication system 1 may detect the distance from the user by the proximity sensor and may normalize the brightness of the preview image by multiplying each pixel value of the preview image by the normalization variable corresponding to the sensed distance. The normalization variable may be experimentally determined to reduce the brightness variation according to the distance from the user”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson Jang in view of Law to incorporate iris as an electronic device that performs biometric authentication (e.g., an iris recognizer) may successively receive biometric data as (Lee, paragraph [0005]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 15, 17, 27 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 12, prior arts whether stand alone or in combination fail to teach or reasonably suggest the device according to Claim 1, comprising “wherein the settings further comprise temperature settings of a heating device, preferably setpoint temperatures of a heating device”, as required in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 15, prior arts whether stand alone or in combination fail to teach or reasonably suggest the device according to Claim 1, comprising “a proximity sensor, and wherein the device comprises a window that is semi-transparent, preferably wherein the window is semi-transparent”, as required in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 17, prior arts whether stand alone or in combination fail to teach or reasonably suggest the device according to Claim 1, comprising “wherein the electrical component is a heating device and the light source is configured to be illuminated in a portion indicating a relationship between a current temperature and a target temperature of the heating device”, as required in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 27, prior arts whether stand alone or in combination fail to teach or reasonably suggest the device according to Claim 3, comprising “wherein said distance range of said particular activation position is a range of within + 1 cm of said particular activation position”, as required in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does rely on new reference applied in combination with the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 SYED M KAISER whose telephone number is (571)272-9612. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m.-6 p.m..
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, Abdullah Riyami can be reached at 571-270-3119. 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.
/SYED M KAISER/Examiner, Art Unit 2831
/ABDULLAH A RIYAMI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights