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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/30/2026, 07/08/2025, and 01/17/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Objection/s to the Specification
The title of the invention, “ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND CONTROLLING METHOD THEREOF,” is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - AIA 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 of this title, 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, 2, 6, and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ham (US 20170092116 A1) in view of Yao (US 8840250 B1).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Ham teaches an electronic device (Fig. 1-13B) and of controlling an electronic device (Fig. 1-13B) comprising: a communicator (420); a camera (495); a projection part (485); and a processor (470) configured to: receive, through the communicator (420), state information ([0036], [0037], [0041]) indicating an operation state of an external device (100a/b/c/d/e/f/g/h), obtain, from a memory (465), related information of the external device (100a/b/c/d/e/f/g/h; [0062], [0063]), based on the obtained related information of the external device (100a/b/c/d/e/f/g/h), identify a projection area (1200) on which to project a screen (1100, 1210) related to the received state information ([0036], [0037], [0041]) among the at least one area, and control the projection part (485) to project the screen (1100, 1210) on the identified projection area (1200; [0121], [0126], [0131]-[0135]).
Ham does not explicitly teach based on an image of the external device (100a/b/c/d/e/f/g/h) obtained through the camera (495), identify at least one area from among an area on a surface of the external device (100a/b/c/d/e/f/g/h) and an area around the external device (100a/b/c/d/e/f/g/h).
Yao teaches based on an image of the external device obtained through the camera, identify at least one area from among an area on a surface of the external device and an area around the external device, i.e., identify a projection area (Fig. 8; col. 6, lines 4 – 20; col. 7 line 60 – col. 8 line 42).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Ham with Yao; because it allows projecting corrected image onto the desired surface.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Ham further teaches wherein the processor (470) is configured to: based on the obtained related information and the received state information ([0036], [0037], [0041]), identify the projection area (1200) among the at least one area, and the obtained related information includes at least one of information for identification of the external device (100a/b/c/d/e/f/g/h), information on a type of the external device (100a/b/c/d/e/f/g/h), information on a surface of the external device (100a/b/c/d/e/f/g/h), information on a major operation of the external device (100a/b/c/d/e/f/g/h), or information on components included in the external device (100a/b/c/d/e/f/g/h; [0062], [0063]).
Regarding claim 6, combination of Ham and Yao consequently results in wherein the processor (470) is configured to: based on the received state information ([0036], [0037], [0041] of Ham) and the obtained related information, identify whether to project the screen (1100, 1210 of Ham) through the projection part (485; [0082] of Ham), based on identifying that the screen (1100, 1210 of Ham) will not be projected, control the communicator (420 of Ham) to transmit the received state information ([0036], [0037], [0041] of Ham) to a user terminal ([0082] of Ham), and based on identifying that the screen (1100, 1210 of Ham) will be projected, obtain the image of the external device (100a/b/c/d/e/f/g/h of Ham) through the camera (495, [0082] of Ham; col. 5 line 55 – col. 6 line 3, col. 7 line 60 – col. 8 line 6 of Yao).
Regarding claim 8, Ham further teaches a driver (486), wherein the processor (470) is configured to: control the driver (486) and the projection part (485) to project the screen (1100, 1210) on the identified projection area (1200; [0121], [0125], [0126], [0162]-[0163]).
Regarding claim 9, Ham further teaches the processor (470) is configured to: obtain an image for a user through the camera (495), based on the obtained image for the user, obtain information on the user ([0141]-[0142] of Ham).
Ham does not explicitly teach based on the obtained information on the user, the obtained related information, and the received state information, identify the projection area among the at least one area, and the obtained information on the user includes at least one of information on a location of the user, information on a direction in which a head of the user is facing, information on a distance between the user and the external device, or information on a life pattern of the user.
Yao teaches based on the obtained information on the user, identify the projection area (1200) among the at least one area (col. 2, lines 35 – 48; col. 5, lines 31 – 39; col. 5 line 55 – col. 6 line 3; col. 10 line 62 – col. 11 line 5), and
the obtained information on the user includes at least one of information on a location of the user, information on a direction in which a head of the user is facing, information on a distance between the user and the external device (100a/b/c/d/e/f/g/h), or information on a life pattern of the user (col. 2, lines 35 – 48; col. 5, lines 31 – 39; col. 5 line 55 – col. 6 line 3; col. 10 line 62 – col. 11 line 5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to further modify Ham with Yao; because it improves user’s experience.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Ham and Yao consequently results in the processor (470 of Ham) is configured to: based on the direction in which the head of the user is facing being maintained during a predetermined time, identify an area corresponding to the direction in which the head is facing as the projection area (col. 2, lines 35 – 48; col. 5, lines 31 – 39; col. 5 line 55 – col. 6 line 3; col. 10 line 62 – col. 11 line 5 of Yao), identify whether the external device (100a/b/c/d/e/f/g/h of Ham) is in a state of performing a predetermined operation based on the received state information ([0036], [0037], [0041], [0065], [0066] of Ham), based on the external device (100a/b/c/d/e/f/g/h of Ham) being in a state of performing the predetermined operation, control the driver (486 of Ham) and the projection part (485 of Ham) to project the screen (1100, 1210 of Ham) including information on a proceeding situation of the operation, and based on the external device (100a/b/c/d/e/f/g/h of Ham) being in a state of not performing the operation, control the driver (486 of Ham) and the projection part (485 of Ham) to project the screen (1100, 1210 of Ham) including information for controlling an operation of the external device (100a/b/c/d/e/f/g/h; [0065]-[0068], [0126]-[0140] of Ham).
Regarding claim 11, Ham, as modified by Yao, further teaches wherein the processor (470) is configured to: based on identifying that the received state information ([0036], [0037], [0041]) is displayed on a plurality of screens (1100, 1210) on a basis of the received state information ([0036], [0037], [0041]), control the driver (486) and the projection part (485) to project a first screen (1100, 1210) among the plurality of screens (1100, 1210) on the identified projection area (1200), and based on identifying that the user performed an operation corresponding to the projected first screen (1100, 1210) based on the obtained image for the user being obtained while the first screen (1100, 1210) among the plurality of screens (1100, 1210) is being projected, control the driver (486) and the projection part (485) to project a second screen (1100, 1210) subsequent to the first screen (1100, 1210) among the plurality of screens (1100, 1210; [0046]-[0048]).
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ham in view of Yao and in further view of Zavesky (US 20230353715 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, neither Ham nor Yao explicitly teach the processor is configured to: based on at least one of an amount of the received state information or an importance of the received state information, identify a threshold size for the identified projection area, and based on a size of the surface of the external device being greater than or equal to the identified threshold size, identify the area on the surface of the external device as the identified projection area.
Zavesky teaches based on at least one of an amount of the received state information or an importance of the received state information, identify a threshold size for the identified projection area, and based on a size of the surface of the external device being greater than or equal to the identified threshold size, identify the area on the surface of the external device as the identified projection area ([0038]-[0043]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to Ham and Yao with Zavesky; because it allows controlling the ensuring the suitability of the of the projection area.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 7, and 15 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.
Regarding claims 4 and 15, the closest prior art references, Ham, Yao and Zavesky, do not teach, by themselves or in combination with one another, “the processor is configured to: based on the size of the surface of the external device being smaller than the identified threshold size, and a display being included in the external device, identify an area adjacent to the display among the at least one area around the external device as the identified projection area, and based on the size of the surface of the external device being smaller than the threshold size, and the display not being included in the external device, identify an area adjacent to a component of the external device performing the major operation among the at least one area around the external device as the identified projection area.” Furthermore, there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation in the prior art references to modify the references in such manner that results in the above claimed limitation/s; hence the invention as claimed by claims 4 and 15 is not obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 5, the closest prior art references, Ham, Yao and Zavesky, do not teach, by themselves or in combination with one another, “the processor is configured to: based on the obtained related information including the information on the components included in the external device, identify a component among the components included in the external device related to the received state information, and control the projection part to project the screen on a location corresponding to the identified component in the identified projection area.” Furthermore, there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation in the prior art references to modify the references in such manner that results in the above claimed limitation/s; hence the invention as claimed by claim 5 is not obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 7, the closest prior art references, Ham, Yao and Zavesky, do not teach, by themselves or in combination with one another, “the processor is configured to: based on the received state information, identify whether to project the screen through the projection part according to whether an importance of the received state information corresponds to urgency.” Furthermore, there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation in the prior art references to modify the references in such manner that results in the above claimed limitation/s; hence the invention as claimed by claim 7 is not obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Conclusion
The prior art references cited in PTO-892 are made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Patent documents, US 20220208038 A1, US 11750781 B2, and US 10528853 B1, disclose methods of determining suitable projection surfaces.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO-LUAN Q LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5362. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached on (571) 272 230303. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, (for formal communications intended for entry)
Or:
(571) 273-7490, (for informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”)
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
/BAO-LUAN Q LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights