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 .
Response to Arguments
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 20 July 2026. They have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the rejections based on 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, which have been withdrawn. With respect to Applicant’s remarks in response to the rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 112(b), they have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments ignore the open-ended nature of the language “at least one processor circuit to be programmed by the machine-readable instructions”. The Examiner submits that a processor that is “to be programmed” by instructions is not the same as a processor programmed by the instructions. The former encompasses generic processors that have not been configured by the instructions but include the capability to be programmed (i.e., there is nothing in the processor’s design that prevents it from being programmed), while the latter is restricted to processors that already have been programmed with the instructions. In the language of MPEP 2181(II)(B), the former includes general purpose computers, while the latter is restricted to special purpose computers that have been configured for a specific function (i.e., the recited functions). The Examiner agrees that the recitation of “machine-readable instructions” implies a special purpose computer. The use of “to be programmed”, however, undermines this intent by using language that makes it ambiguous whether the processor is actually programmed. For these reasons, the rejection is therefore maintained.
Applicant’s amendments have also necessitated new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claim 1 recites at least one processor circuit “to be programmed” by instructions to execute the recited functions. The language “to be programmed” is indefinite because it may be interpreted to indicate a processor with the potential to be programmed rather than a processor that has been programmed. Under this interpretation, any processor that is not specifically restricted from being programmed in the claimed manner may be construed as the claimed processor. Alternatively, “to be programmed” may be interpreted as a statement of intended use for the processor, and therefore possibly non-limiting. The Examiner recommends amending the claim to more explicitly recite a processor that has been programmed or configured to achieve the claimed functions (e.g., by omitting the words “to be”). Claim 15 is rejected on the same basis. Similar reasoning may be applied to the language of the dependent claims, “the at least one processor circuit is to cause”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an indication of the first user presence” and “an indication of the second user presence” in lines 18-22. Claim 1 has previously provided an original recitation for “an indication of a first user presence” and “an indication of a second user presence”. It is unclear whether the indications in lines 18 and 19 are intended to reference the previously recited indications or establish different indications. If the former is in view, the language should make this reference explicit (i.e., the indication of the first user presence state). If the latter is in view, appropriate language should be used to differentiate between the indications. Similar reasoning may be applied to the indications of lines 21 and 22. Claims 8 and 15 employ similar language and are rejected on the same basis.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 23 July 2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Copies of the following references were not included:
WO 2017218243
JP 2020039069
JP 10240389
JP 2011137874
International Searching Authority, “Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority”, issued in connection with PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/048953, mailed on Nov. 23, 2016, 9 pages
International Searching Authority, “Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority”, issued in connection with International Patent Application No. PCT/CN2019/079790, dated January 3, 2020, 4 pages
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JI H BAE whose telephone number is (571)272-7181. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday to Friday and every other Monday, 9 am to 6 pm.
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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at 571-270-1640. 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.
/JI H BAE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Phone: 571-272-7181
Fax: 571-273-7181
ji.bae@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights