CTNF 18/941,322 CTNF 98256 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Notice to Applicants This communication is in response to the action filed on 11/08/2024. Claims 1-9 are currently pending. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 11/08/2024 has been considered. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: 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. 07-30-05 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, in this case the term “unit” is used; (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. 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 limitations use 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, the generic place holder term used is “unit”. Such claim limitations are: “An acquisition unit” in claims 1, and 7-8. As defined in the specification/claims at paragraph [0006], and claims 1, 7-8 which describe the unit as configured to acquire captured data from a camera imaging a place at which a display device can be visually recognized. “a determination unit” in claims 1-6, and 8. As defined in the specification/claims at paragraphs [0038], and claims 1-6, and 8 which describe the unit as configured to determine whether or not there is a malfunction in the display device on the basis of viewing actions of a plurality of viewers that are determined from the captured data. Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. All of the claims are method claims (9), apparatus/machine claims (1-8) or manufacture claim (NA) under (Step 1), but under Step 2A prong 1 all of these claims recite abstract ideas and specifically mental processes— concepts performed in the human mind including monitoring, acquiring, determining and outputting which are generally described as a user visually monitoring a display to judge/acquiring images of the display displaying a reference image and determining using the reference image and captured image the presence and location of display malfunctions and outputting the identified display malfunctions as a determination result; furthermore these mental processes are more particularly with method claim 9 used as an example: Recited in claim 9 as: Monitoring method… Acquiring visual recognition data for perceiving positions on a display screen of a display device… Acquiring a determination result/determining indicating whether or not there is a malfunction in the display device… Outputting an alert signal based on the determination result. It is noted that the above analysis is according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Consider also that “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea” as per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B). See also footnotes 14 and 15 of the Federal Register Notice. As detailed above, the steps of observing a displayed image on a display, acquiring an image using a camera of the display displaying a reference image, determining if the display has a malfunction while displaying the image compared to the captured image, outputting an alert if a display malfunction is determined by the user. Therefore, the user in one’s mind would perform recognizing of a malfunctioning display and alert the needed maintenance staff. There are no additional elements for claim 9 as all limitations included in claim 9 represent mental processes. Under step 2A, prong 2, the claim does not recite any additional elements in order to integrate the judicial exception introduced in the independent claims 1, 8, and 9 as previously stated in prong 1 above, there are no additional elements for claim 9. The claims fail to recite or integrate an additional element and taking independent claims 1 and 8 as an example merely recites the words “to execute” or “inputting the visual recognition data to a learning completed model that has learned conditions representing a relationship between the visual recognition data and presence or absence of a malfunction in the display device” which are interpreted to mean substantially “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to run the generic model to perform an abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception. Further the abstract idea fails to make an improvement to the claimed generic computing system in claims 1 and 10 and as such fails to integrate a judicial exception to the claims under step 2A prong 2, taking claim 10 and 1 as the example: A) “inputting the visual recognition data to a learning completed model that has learned conditions representing a relationship between the visual recognition data and presence or absence of a malfunction in the display device”, “determination unit”, and “an acquisition unit”. Which all comprise computer program products ran on a generic computing device described in claim 1 and 8 and not adding significantly more to the claims. B) “a monitoring device” as recited in claim 1 and comprises a generic computing component that does not provide significantly more. C) “a camera” as recited in claim 1 and comprises a generic computing component that does not provide significantly more. Cameras are considered generic to the art even built in cameras are generic to displays of the current generation. Under step 2A prong 2, the above identified generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The examiner maintains all of these steps comprise mental process steps which have not been integrated into significantly more by structural/additional claimed elements. Under Step 2B, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because each of claims 1-9 do not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application. The only additional elements {a generic monitoring device/system (claims 1 & 8) a display screen (claims 8 & 9), and a camera (claim 1) which comprises a generic computing component} are recited at a high level of generality and merely equate to previously mentioned “to execute”/“apply it” or otherwise merely uses a generic computer and generic computing components as a tool to perform an abstract idea/mental process which are not indicative of integration into a practical application as per MPEP 2106.05(f). The corresponding dependent claims further fail to introduce significantly more to the claims and only include the generic computing components introduced and discussed in the independent claims. See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) with respect to Mental Processes: “Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer”. See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3) Using a computer as tool to perform a mental process and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D) as well as the case law cited therein. Further, the depending claims do not remedy these deficiencies: - claims 2-7 further recite mental processes which could be performed in the human mind with pen and paper. - claim 4 represent post solution activity of storing display data in a database for further statistical analysis. In other words, the additional elements and/or are recited at a high level of generality that does not amount to significantly more and/ such that they could practically be performed in the human mind. For all of the above reasons, taken alone or in combination, claims 1-9 recite a non-statutory mental process. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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 non-obviousness. Claims 1-3, 8-9 are rejected under 35 § U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 2024/0303798 A1 to JI et al. (hereinafter “JI”) in view of US 2024/0137484 A1 to WANG et al (hereinafter “WANG”). As per claim 1, JI discloses a monitoring device comprising (a display monitoring device; abstract; figs 1-3, 6a, and 8-9; paragraphs [0066-0068], [0107]) : an acquisition unit configured to acquire captured data from a camera imaging a place at which a display device can be visually recognized (the computing system comprises an acquisition device 112 which is a camera and captures images of the display as a n automated optical inspection device to determine difference between the image of the display panel and a standard image of a display panel, identify the difference as a defect and take the photo, thereby obtaining the image of the display panel with a defect pattern, facilitating the later recognition and analysis of the defect type and the defect position; abstract; figs 1-3, 6a, and 8-9; paragraphs [0066-0068], [0107], [0203]) ; and a determination unit configured to determine whether or not there is a malfunction in the display device (the computing system comprises a processor which acts as a determination unit in order to use an attention model to determine a display defects position and type based on attention value/score given to the position of the defect on the display; abstract; figs 1-3, 6a, and 8-9; paragraphs [0066-0068], [0107]) . JI fails to disclose on the basis of viewing actions of a plurality of viewers that are determined from the captured data. WANG discloses on the basis of viewing actions of a plurality of viewers that are determined from the captured data (the computing system provides a camera for tracking the users gaze on the display and identifies gaze zones and gaze points which draw the users gaze/attention and are used to identify errors in the image rendering being displayed on said display based on user gaze/attention scores; title; fig 17-18; abstract; paragraphs [0018-0024], [0033-0034], [0146], [0183]) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify JI to have on the basis of viewing actions of a plurality of viewers that are determined from the captured data of WANG reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide ability for the computer to determine a gaze point and a gaze zone of a display screen which is displaying an image and find a specific point/zone that is drawing the users gaze/attention and assign each point a value and would be combined with JI’s attention model as the ability to determine attention drawn to a display defect as suggested by WANG at paragraphs [0033-0034]. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine WANG with JI to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1. As per claim 2 , JI in view of WANG discloses the monitoring device according to claim 1, wherein the determination unit determines whether or not there is a malfunction in the display device on the basis of positions on a display screen of the display device (the computing system comprises the processor acting as the determination unit using data obtained using the acquisition device 112 which is a camera and captures images of the display as an automated optical inspection device to determine difference between the image of the display panel and a standard image of a display panel, identify the difference as a defect and take the photo, thereby obtaining the image of the display panel with a defect pattern, facilitating the later recognition and analysis of the defect type and the defect position; abstract; figs 1-3, 6a, and 8-9; paragraphs [0066-0068], [0107], [0203]) . JI fails to disclose which are positions visually recognized by the plurality of viewers, determined as the viewing actions of the plurality of viewers. WANG discloses which are positions visually recognized by the plurality of viewers, determined as the viewing actions of the plurality of viewers (the computing system provides a camera for tracking the users gaze on the display and identifies gaze zones and gaze points which draw the users gaze/attention and are used to identify errors in the image rendering being displayed on said display based on user gaze/attention scores (viewing actions) where the higher the score the more users are gazing at that point of the display; title; fig 17-18; abstract; paragraphs [0018-0024], [0033-0034], [0146], [0183]) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify JI to have which are positions visually recognized by the plurality of viewers, determined as the viewing actions of the plurality of viewers of WANG reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide ability for the computer to determine a gaze point and a gaze zone of a display screen which is displaying an image and find a specific point/zone that is drawing the users gaze and would be combined with JI as the ability to determine attention drawn to a display defect as suggested by WANG at paragraphs [0033-0034]. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine WANG with JI to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2. As per claim 3, JI discloses the monitoring device according to claim 2, wherein the determination unit determines that there is a malfunction in a specific area in a case in which the positions on the display screen of the display device (the computing system comprises an acquisition device 112 which is a camera and captures images of the display as a n automated optical inspection device to determine difference between the image of the display panel and a standard image of a display panel, identify the difference as a defect and take the photo, thereby obtaining the image of the display panel with a defect pattern, facilitating the later recognition and analysis of the defect type and the defect position; abstract; figs 1-3, 6a, and 8-9; paragraphs [0066-0068], [0107], [0203]) , are concentrated in the specific area on the display screen regardless of a change in an image displayed in the display device (the defect positions are verified using different defect patterns as a positive pattern and a negative pattern (which are different patterns) as the images displayed by the display and captured using acquisition device 112 to determine defect type and position; paragraphs [0192], [0203]) . JI fails to disclose which are positions visually recognized by the plurality of viewers. WANG discloses which are positions visually recognized by the plurality of viewers (the computing system provides a camera for tracking the users gaze on the display and identifies gaze zones and gaze points (positions) which draw the users gaze/attention and are used to identify errors in the image rendering being displayed on said display based on user gaze/attention scores (viewing actions) where the higher the score the more users are gazing at that point of the display; title; fig 17-18; abstract; paragraphs [0018-0024], [0033-0034], [0146], [0183]) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify JI to have which are positions visually recognized by the plurality of viewers of WANG reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide ability for the computer to determine a gaze point and a gaze zone of a display screen which is displaying an image and find a specific point/zone that is drawing the users gaze and would be combined with JI as the ability to determine attention drawn to a display defect as suggested by WANG at paragraphs [0033-0034]. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine WANG with JI to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3. As per claim 8 , JI discloses a monitoring device comprising (a display monitoring device; abstract; figs 1-3, 6a, and 8-9; paragraphs [0066-0068], [0107]) : an acquisition unit configured to acquire visual-recognition data from which for perceiving positions on a display screen of a display device (the computing system comprises an acquisition device 112 which is a camera and captures images of the display as a n automated optical inspection device to determine difference between the image of the display panel and a standard image of a display panel, identify the difference as a defect and take the photo, thereby obtaining the image of the display panel with a defect pattern, facilitating the later recognition and analysis of the defect type and the defect position; abstract; figs 1-3, 6a, and 8-9; paragraphs [0066-0068], [0107], [0203]) , and a determination unit configured to acquire a determination result indicating whether or not there is a malfunction in the display device by inputting the visual-recognition data acquired by the acquisition unit to a learning-completed model that has learned conditions representing a relationship between the visual recognition data and presence or absence of a malfunction in the display device using the visual recognition data and data representing whether or not there is a malfunction in the display device (the computing system comprises a processor which acts as a determination unit in order to use an attention model to determine a display defects position and type based on attention value/score given to the position of the defect on the display; abstract; figs 1-3, 6a, and 8-9; paragraphs [0066-0068], [0107]) . JI fails to disclose wherein the positions are visually recognized by a plurality of viewers. WANG discloses wherein the positions are visually recognized by a plurality of viewers (the computing system provides a camera for tracking the users gaze on the display and identifies gaze zones and gaze points (positions) which draw the users gaze/attention and are used to identify errors in the image rendering being displayed on said display based on user gaze/attention scores (viewing actions) where the higher the score the more users are gazing at that point of the display; title; fig 17-18; abstract; paragraphs [0018-0024], [0033-0034], [0146], [0183]) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify JI to have wherein the positions are visually recognized by a plurality of viewers of WANG reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide ability for the computer to determine a gaze point and a gaze zone of a display screen which is displaying an image and find a specific point/zone that is drawing the users gaze and would be combined with JI as the ability to determine attention drawn to a display defect as suggested by WANG at paragraphs [0033-0034]. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine WANG with JI to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8. As per claim 9, JI discloses a monitoring method comprising (a display monitoring device and method of use; abstract; figs 1-3, 6a, and 8-9; paragraphs [0066-0068], [0107]) : acquiring visual recognition data for perceiving positions on a display screen of a display device (the computing system comprises an acquisition device 112 which is a camera and captures images of the display as a n automated optical inspection device to determine difference between the image of the display panel and a standard image of a display panel, identify the difference as a defect and take the photo, thereby obtaining the image of the display panel with a defect pattern, facilitating the later recognition and analysis of the defect type and the defect position; abstract; figs 1-3, 6a, and 8-9; paragraphs [0066-0068], [0107], [0203]) , acquiring a determination result indicating whether or not there is a malfunction in the display device by inputting the visual recognition data to a learning-completed model that has learned conditions representing a relationship between the visual recognition data and presence or absence of a malfunction in the display device using the visual recognition data and data representing whether or not there is a malfunction in the display device (the computing system comprises a processor which acts as a determination unit in order to use an attention model to determine a display defects position and type based on attention value/score given to the position of the defect on the display; abstract; figs 1-3, 6a, and 8-9; paragraphs [0066-0068], [0107]) ; and outputting an alert signal based on the determination result (the computing system includes input/output device such as connected displays and computers to share and output data/information including in step S24 of fig 3 the system using the first attention model to obtain an output of the first attention model, configured to learn the weight proportion of the feature of the defect pattern in the image of the display panel based on the pixel feature of the image of the display panel and the positional relationship feature between the different pixels; figs 3, 8, and 13; paragraphs [0062-0063], [0107]) . JI fails to disclose wherein the positions are visually recognized by a plurality of viewers. WANG discloses wherein the positions are visually recognized by a plurality of viewers (the computing system provides a camera for tracking the users gaze on the display and identifies gaze zones and gaze points (positions) which draw the users gaze/attention and are used to identify errors in the image rendering being displayed on said display based on user gaze/attention scores (viewing actions) where the higher the score the more users are gazing at that point of the display; title; fig 17-18; abstract; paragraphs [0018-0024], [0033-0034], [0146], [0183]) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify JI to have wherein the positions are visually recognized by a plurality of viewers of WANG reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide ability for the computer to determine a gaze point and a gaze zone of a display screen which is displaying an image and find a specific point/zone that is drawing the users gaze and would be combined with JI as the ability to determine attention drawn to a display defect as suggested by WANG at paragraphs [0033-0034]. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine WANG with JI to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9. Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 § U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 2024/0303798 A1 to JI et al. (hereinafter “JI”) in view of US 2024/0137484 A1 to WANG et al (hereinafter “WANG”) in view of US 9,462,266 B2 to QIAN et al. (hereinafter “QIAN”). As per claim 4, JI in view of WANG discloses the monitoring device according to claim 2. Modified JI fails to disclose wherein the determination unit determines whether or not there is similarity on the basis of a history of the positions on the display screen visually recognized by the viewers and determines whether or not there is a malfunction in the display device on the basis of a determination result. QIAN discloses wherein the determination unit determines whether or not there is similarity on the basis of a history of the positions on the display screen visually recognized by the viewers and determines whether or not there is a malfunction in the display device on the basis of a determination result (the server of the computing device is adapted to connect the device to a database comprising pluralities of historical display device data and based on historical data and statistical analysis is adapted to determine if a display comprises a fault/defect and the type and severity of said fault/defect based on historical display data; TABLE 1; column 4, line 13-column 5, line 64; column 6, lines 3-28) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify JI to have historical reference ability of defects seen commonly on displays of QIAN reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide the ability to compare fault codes/display defects and group similar codes together relating to similar defects based on stored historical defect data resident in the databases as suggested by TABLE 1 and column 4, lines 1-57 of QIAN. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine QIAN with modified JI to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4. As per claim 7, JI in view of WANG discloses the monitoring device according to claim 1. Modified JI fails to disclose wherein the acquisition unit acquires an image in which viewers visually recognizing a content displayed on the display screen of the display device are imaged from a camera mounted in the display device. QIAN discloses wherein the acquisition unit acquires an image in which viewers visually recognizing a content displayed on the display screen of the display device are imaged from a camera mounted in the display device (the camera of the image capture unit is adapted to be built into the display and captures and image of the display displaying a reference image; column 3, line 66-column 4, line 67; column 5, line 7- column 6, lines 28) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify JI to have the camera mounted within the display device of QIAN reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a built-in camera to capture the display images from the inside of the device making overall device footprint smaller and more ergonomical as suggested by column 5, lines 22-30 of QIAN. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine QIAN with modified JI to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7. Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 § U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 2024/0303798 A1 to JI et al. (hereinafter “JI”) in view of US 2024/0137484 A1 to WANG et al (hereinafter “WANG”) in view of US 9,462,266 B2 to QIAN et al. (hereinafter “QIAN”) in view of US 2012/0026326 A1 to ITOH et al (hereinafter “ITOH”). As per claim 5 , JI in view of WANG in view of QIAN discloses the monitoring device according to claim 4. Modified JI fails to disclose wherein the determination unit determines whether or not there is similarity of second positions that are visually recognized by the viewers after visual recognition of first positions. ITOH discloses wherein the determination unit determines whether or not there is similarity of second positions that are visually recognized by the viewers after visual recognition of first positions (each pixel point of the image which includes a first and second pixel point position has its image feature values compared and may be compared to a threshold for the feature values; figs 3-4, 7A-H, and 9; paragraphs [0050-0057], [0070-0073]) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify JI to have the determination unit determines whether or not there is similarity of second positions that are visually recognized of ITOH reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide the ability to automatically check display device for errors using user gaze feature data requiring maintenance and if identified notifying maintenance sites 91 as suggested by paragraph [0086] and fig 16 of ITOH. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine ITOH with modified JI to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5. As per claim 6 , JI in view of WANG in view of QIAN in view of ITOH discloses the monitoring device according to claim 5. Modified JI fails to disclose wherein the determination unit determines whether or not there is a malfunction in the display device on the basis of whether or not the number of viewers with respect to this similarity has reached a reference number of persons. ITOH discloses wherein the determination unit determines whether or not there is a malfunction in the display device on the basis of whether or not the number of viewers with respect to this similarity has reached a reference number of persons (the threshold may be set on any feature of the image including the ability to capture a user’s gaze and may track the users eye gaze and based on comparison to database data determines display malfunction type and severity; paragraphs [0066-0067], [0070-0076]), [0080-0081]) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify JI to have the determination unit determines whether or not there is a malfunction in the display device on the basis of whether or not the number of viewers with respect to this similarity has reached a reference number of ITOH reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide the ability to automatically check display device for errors requiring maintenance and if identified notifying maintenance sites 91 as suggested by paragraph [0086] and fig 16 of ITOH. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine ITOH with modified JI to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6. Conclusion Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited figures, and paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested for the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Examiner has also cited references in PTO892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution. 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. These prior arts include the following: US 2022/0122243 A1 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVIN JACOB DHOOGE whose telephone number is (571) 270-0999. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00. 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. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Bee can be reached on (571) 270-5183. 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. /Devin Dhooge/ USPTO Patent Examiner Art Unit 2677 /ANDREW W BEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/941,322 Page 2 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/941,322 Page 3 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/941,322 Page 4 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/941,322 Page 5 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/941,322 Page 6 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/941,322 Page 7 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/941,322 Page 8 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/941,322 Page 9 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/941,322 Page 10 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/941,322 Page 11 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/941,322 Page 12 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/941,322 Page 13 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/941,322 Page 14 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/941,322 Page 15 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/941,322 Page 16 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/941,322 Page 17 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/941,322 Page 19 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/941,322 Page 20 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/941,322 Page 21 Art Unit: 2677
Prosecution Insights