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 8 – 9 and 16 – 17 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.
Claims 8 and 16 recites the limitation "the value of the distance signal" in the limitation “determining a minimum distance signal difference indicative of a minimum difference between a plurality of differences calculated in absolute value between the value of the distance signal and a respective plurality of stored values of the distance signal.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 9 and 17 are rejected by virtue of dependency from claims 8 and 16, respectively.
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.
Claims 1, 4 – 7, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bravo et al. (US 2019/0128660 A1 – hereafter “Bravo”).
As per claim 1, Bravo discloses at least in figures 1 – 3 a measuring device, the measuring device comprising: a distance sensor (106/206) configured to:
measure a distance between the measuring device and a user when the user is in a field of view of the distance sensor (distance sensor 206 can detect a subject within a field of view 250 of the distance sensor 206 and can determine a distance 240 of the subject within the distance sensor’s field of view 250; see paras. [0012], [0017], [0019] – [0020]), and generate a distance signal indicative of the distance (the distance sensor is an electronic device that can measure/determine a distance of a subject from the distance sensor and output that determination to the controller; see paras. [0012], [0020]);
an infrared (IR) sensor configured to: detect an IR radiation emitted by the user when the user is in a field of view of the IR sensor (infrared sensor 204 can detect a thermal signature of a subject within a field of view 252 of the infrared sensor 204, wherein a thermal signature refers to an amount of infrared light radiating and/or reflected from the subject; see paras. [0010], [0014] – [0016]), the field of view of the distance sensor and the field of view of the IR sensor being at least partially overlapping with each other (the field of view 250 of the distance sensor 206 can be included within, i.e., encompassed by, the field of view 252 of the infrared sensor 204; see paras. [0017] – [0018]), and generate a temperature signal indicative of the IR radiation (an infrared sensor can detect a thermal signature of a subject as represented by a digital count, wherein a digital count is a digital representation of an amount of infrared radiation detected by the infrared sensor, see para [0032]);
and a controller (112/212/312), coupled to the distance sensor and the IR sensor (the electronic device 102/202 includes the infrared sensor, the distance sensor, and the controller as components of the same device, see paras. [0009], [0013]); the controller’s physical size engine 336 and distance engine 338 operate directly on data received from both the distance sensor and the IR sensor, evidencing the coupling between the controller and each sensor, see paras. [0031], [0036]) and configured to:
in a calibration mode of the measuring device, receive the distance signal and the temperature signal (a physical size engine 336 can determine a physical size of a subject based on a distance of the subject at a first location from the distance sensor and the thermal signature of the subject at the first location; see para. [0031]), and generate a calibration curve based on the distance signal and the temperature signal, the calibration curve associating values of the temperature signal with respective values of the distance (the thermal signature and/or distance can be correlated to a physical size of a subject included in an association and/or a mapping such as a look-up table, wherein a look-up table including various thermal signatures, distances, and corresponding physical sizes can be referenced by the controller; the look-up table can include detected values from the infrared sensor, the distance sensor, and/or determined physical sizes of subjects; see paras. [0033], [0036], [0038]), and in a calibrated mode of the measuring device, receive the temperature signal, and determine the distance based on the temperature signal and the calibration curve (a distance engine 338 can determine a distance of the subject at a second location based on the determined physical size of the subject and a thermal signature of the subject at the second location, wherein the second location may be outside a field of view of the distance sensor, and wherein distance determination can notably determine the distance of the subject at the second location without using a distance sensor; see paras. [0037], [0051]).
As per claim 4, Bravo discloses an electronic apparatus usable by a user, comprising: the measuring device according to claim 1. Bravo discloses an electronic device 102/202 comprising an infrared sensor 104/204, a distance sensor 106/206, and a controller 112/212; see paras. [0009], [0013]).
As per claim 5, Bravo discloses the electronic apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the field of view of the distance sensor and the field of view of the IR sensor are at least partially overlapping with each other at a use position of the user (the field of view 250 of the distance sensor 206 can be included within, i.e., encompassed by, the field of view 252 of the infrared sensor 204, such that the fields of view are oriented to jointly observe the subject; see paras. [0017] – [0019]; the infrared sensor having the larger field of view 252 can measure a thermal signature of a subject at a second location while the distance sensor, oriented with its narrower field of view 250, cannot, evidencing that the fields of view are positioned to overlap at the locations where the user is intended to be detected; see paras. [0018] – [0019]).
As per claim 6, Bravo discloses the electronic apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the electronic apparatus is configured to control a functionality of the electronic apparatus as a function of the distance measured by the measuring device (the controller 312 can modify aspects of displayed content based on the determined distance of the subject at the second location; for example, a font size of the displayed content can be increased if the determined distance at the second location is greater than the distance at the first location, to promote readability as the subject moves away from the electronic device; similarly, the controller 312 can modify a volume up/down and/or enlarge/reduce a relative size of displayed content based on the determined distance; see para [0042]).
As per claim 7, Bravo discloses at least in figures 1 – 3 a method, comprising: measuring, by a distance sensor, a distance between a measuring device and a user when the user is in a field of view of the distance sensor (see paras. [0012], [0017], [0019] – [0020]);
generating, by the distance sensor, a distance signal indicative of the distance (see paras. [0012], [0020]);
detecting, by an infrared (IR) sensor an IR radiation emitted by the user when the user is in a field of view of the IR sensor, the field of view of the distance sensor and the field of view of the IR sensor being at least partially overlapping (see paras. [0010], [0014] – [0018]);
generating, by the IR sensor, a temperature signal indicative of the IR radiation (see para. [0032]);
in a calibration mode of the measuring device: receiving, by a controller, the distance signal and the temperature signal (see para. [0031]);
and generating, based on the distance signal and the temperature signal, a calibration curve which associates values of the temperature signal with respective values of the distance (see paras. [0033], [0036], [0038]);
and in a calibrated mode of the measuring device: receiving the temperature signal (see para. [0036]);
and determining the distance based on the temperature signal and the calibration curve (see paras. [0037], [0051]).
As per claim 15, Bravo discloses at least in figures 1 – 3 a computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon executable instructions that, when executed by a controller, cause the controller to (the controller 312 can be a combination of hardware and instructions for distance determination, the hardware including a processing resource 330 and/or a memory resource 332, e.g., a computer readable medium; the memory resource includes instructions stored thereon and executable by the processing resource to implement a desired function, and includes a number of engines such as a physical size engine 336 and a distance engine 338; see paras. [0024] – [0030]):
in a calibration mode of a measuring device: receive a distance signal indicative of a distance, measured by a distance sensor, between a measuring device and a user when the user is in a field of view of the distance sensor (see paras. [0012], [0017], [0019] – [0020]);
receive a temperature signal indicative of an infrared (IR) radiation detected by an IR sensor and emitted by the user when the user is in a field of view of the IR sensor, the field of view of the distance sensor and the field of view of the IR sensor being at least partially overlapping (see paras. [0010], [0014] – [0018], [0032]);
and generating, based on the distance signal and the temperature signal, a calibration curve which associates values of the temperature signal with respective values of the distance (see paras. [0031], [0033], [0036], [0038]);
and in a calibrated mode of the measuring device: receiving the temperature signal (see para. [0036]);
and determining the distance based on the temperature signal and the calibration curve (see paras. [0037], [0051]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bravo in view of Warmack et al (US 2002/0158637 A1 – hereafter “Warmack”).
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “The measuring device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to: in the calibrated mode of the measuring device, periodically receive the distance signal and, based on the distance signal and the temperature signal acquired in the calibrated mode, verify a calibration update condition; and if the calibration update condition is confirmed, in a calibration update mode of the measuring device update the calibration curve based on the distance signal and the temperature signal.”
Bravo fails to teach periodically verifying a calibration update condition during calibrated mode operation, or a distinct calibration update mode triggered upon confirmation of that condition.
Warmack teaches a self-calibrating sensor system in which testing and calibration are performed periodically and automatically while the sensor remains in field use, without interrupting sensor function (see paras. [0062] – [0064]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Bravo’s distance determination system in view of Warmack to periodically verify a calibration update condition during calibrated mode operation and, upon confirmation, enter a calibration update mode, in order to apply Warmack’s known self-calibration technique providing real time, continuous recalibration without interrupting normal sensor operation, to Bravo’s distance determination system, yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “ The method according to claim 7, comprising: in the calibrated mode of the measuring device: periodically acquiring the distance signal through the distance sensor; and on the basis of the distance signal and the temperature signal acquired in the calibrated mode, verifying a calibration update condition; and if the calibration update condition is confirmed, in a calibration update mode of the measuring device: updating the calibration curve on the basis of the distance signal and the temperature signal.”
Bravo fails to explicitly teach periodically acquiring the distance signal during calibrated mode operation, verifying a calibration update condition on that basis, or a distinct calibration update mode in which the calibration curve is updated upon confirmation of that condition.
Warmack teaches periodically testing a sensor and applying decision logic to determine whether recalibration is needed, with calibration and recalibration occurring automatically without interrupting sensor operation (see paras. [0062] – [0064]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Bravo’s method in view of Warmack to periodically acquire the distance signal during calibrated mode operation, verify a calibration update condition, and update the calibration curve in a calibration update mode upon configuration, in order to apply Warmack’s known self-calibration method, to Bravo’s distance determination system, yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites “The computer-readable storage medium according to claim 15, wherein the executable instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the controller to: in the calibrated mode of the measuring device: periodically acquire the distance signal through the distance sensor; and on the basis of the distance signal and the temperature signal acquired in the calibrated mode, verify a calibration update condition; and if the calibration update condition is confirmed, in a calibration update mode of the measuring device: update the calibration curve on the basis of the distance signal and the temperature signal.”
Bravo fails to teach instructions for periodically acquiring the distance signal during calibrated mode operation, verifying a calibration update condition on that basis, or updating the calibration curve in a calibration update mode upon confirmation of that condition.
Warmack teaches periodically testing a sensor and applying decision logic to determine whether recalibration is needed, made automatic whether recalibration is needed, made automatic through execution of stored programmed self-test routines, with calibration and recalibration occurring without interrupting sensor operation (see paras. [0062] – [0064]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Bravo’s computer readable storage medium in view of Warmack to include instructions that periodically acquire the distance signal during calibrated mode operation, verify a calibration update condition, and update the calibration curve in a calibration update mode upon confirmation, in order to implement Warmack’s stored program driven self-calibration technique within, Bravo’s distance determination system, yielding predictable results.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bravo in view of Goh et al. (US 2024/0147155 A1 – hereafter “Goh”).
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “The measuring device according to claim 1, wherein the IR sensor is a Thermal MOS (TMOS), and the distance sensor is a time-of-flight sensor.”
Bravo teaches that the distance sensor can be a time-of-flight sensor (see para. [0012]) and that the IR sensor can be any suitable IR sensor (see para. [0011]), but does not explicitly teach that the IR sensor is a TMOS.
Goh teaches a TMOS infrared sensor used as a thermal proximity sensor (see para. [0068]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Bravo’s IR sensor in view of Goh to be a TMOS, since Bravo already discloses that the IR sensor can be any suitable IR sensor, and Goh teaches that a TMOS was a known, suitable IR sensor for thermal proximity sensing, yielding predictable results
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 – 14 and 19 – 20 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Manuel Castellon whose telephone number is (571)272-4575. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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.
/MANUEL SALVADOR CASTELLON JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/NATALIE HULS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights