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 .
Priority
This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior Application No. 15/253,453, filed 08/31/2016, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application constitutes a continuation. Further, examiner notes application number 15/253,453 is a continuation in part of application 13/934,311.
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 13/934,311, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Regarding independent claims 1, 8, and 14, the disclosure of 13/934,311 fails to support the claimed face and eye recognition as well as the eye protection functionality. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 13/934,311, filed on 07/03/2013 with a certified translation filed in parent Application No. 15/253,453. However, examiner notes the certified translation of the foreign priority document does not provide support for the claimed face and eye recognition as well as the eye protection functionality. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application. The effective filing date of the current application is then considered to be the filing date of parent application 15/253,453 filed 08/31/2016.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/06/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,854,159 B2 in view of Wu US 2015/0374236 A1.
Instant Application No. 18/971,604
Claim 1
U.S. Patent No. 9,854,159
Claim 16
An electronic system, comprising: an image sensor, having a field of view; and a display controller, and a display screen
An operating method of an image system, the image system comprising an image sensor, a display screen and a digital signal processor which is electrically coupled to the image sensor and the display screen, the operating method comprising:
and configured to capture an image
capturing, by the image sensor, an image having hundreds of pixels;
configured to perform a face detection and an eye detection on the image;
recognizing, by the digital signal processor, a face and eyes in the image; and
configured to show a notice upon the image being recognized to contain eyes but without containing a complete face, and
showing a notice on the display screen by the digital signal processor when the eyes are recognized in the image but the face is not recognized in the image after performing face detection.
be switched off upon the notice not being turned off within a predetermined time interval.
-
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application differs from claim 1 of the U.S. Patent in that the instant application is broader in scope and includes [the display screen] be switched off upon the notice not being turned off within a predetermined time interval. However, this is well known in the art disclosed by Wu which is in the same field of endeavor. Wu discloses switching an electronic device to resting mode if a warning message is ignored for a predetermined amount of time [0021]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to activate a resting mode of an electronic device, the motivation being relax the muscles of the eyeball [0017].
Claims 14-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,812,706 B2.
Instant Application No. 18/971,604
Claim 14
U.S. Patent No. 10,812,706 B2
Claim 14
An electronic system, comprising:
An electronic system, comprising:
an image sensor, having a field of view and configured to capture an image; and
an image sensor having a predetermined field of view and configured to capture an image;
-
a display screen; and
a processor, configured to perform a face detection and an eye detection on the image; and
a signal processor electrically coupled to the image sensor and the display screen, and configured to recognize a face of a user in the image using face detection, recognize eyes of the user in the image using eye detection, and
a speaker, configured to play a warning voice upon the image being recognized to contain eyes but without containing a complete face.
control a speaker to play a warning voice when the eyes are recognized in the eye detection but the face is not recognized in the face detection due to the user being too close to the display screen, wherein the face is not recognized when the image does not contain a complete face of the user, or when the image does not contain both the eyes and a mouth of the user.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 14 of the instant application differs from claim 14 of the U.S. Patent in that the instant application is broader in scope and therefore the entire scope of the reference claim falls within the scope of the examined claim. In regard to claims 15-20 of the instant application, these claims are rejected as being unpatentable over claims 15-20 respectively of the US Patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding independent claim 8, claim limitation “display with a first brightness and show a notice with a second brightness, higher than the first brightness, upon the image being recognized to contain the eyes but without containing the complete face, wherein the first brightness is lower than the normal brightness” fails to comply with the written description requirement. Paragraph [0079] of the specification describes showing a notice with a relatively high brightness. However, it is unclear how a display screen can operate with a first and a second higher brightness at the same time since display screens output one uniform brightness level. Dependent claims 9-13 fall together accordingly.
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 8-13 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.
The term “normal” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “normal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Dependent claims 8-13 fall together accordingly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 and 14-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the double patenting rejections, set forth in this Office action. Claims 8-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, set forth in this Office action.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ma US 2017/0242471 A1 discloses controlling a standby state of an electronic device by detecting a complete face or eyes of a user
Greenberg US 2017/0068091 discloses an eye protection system using gaze tracking
Hsu et al. US 2017/0318227 A1 discloses eye-protection control using time periods of human face detection
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFAN GADOMSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5701. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 12-8PM EST.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at 571-272-2988. 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.
STEFAN GADOMSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2485
/STEFAN GADOMSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485