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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-24 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.
Claims 25-30 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With regards to claims 18, 25 and 30, several of the features of these claims were known in the art as evidenced by Sucher, “Lightbulbs & Lasers” which discloses determining, based on an acquired index, whether or not the user is in a divergent thinking state at p. 6. Sucher further discloses controlling lighting based upon the divergent thinking. However, Sucher does not disclose the acquired index is based upon variation in a face position of a user, an amount of variation in a face orientation of the user, an amount of variation in a gaze direction of the user or an eye closure percentage of the user. Rather, Sucher determines divergence by means of an EEG reading.
Zhi-Zhong et al (Taiwan Pub. No. TW I765663 B) disclose acquiring at least one index selected from the group consisting of an amount of variation in a face position of a user, an amount of variation in a face orientation of the user, and an eye closure percentage of the user at pp. 4-6 of the English translation. And, Lee et al (US PG Pub. No. 2015/0289345) discloses acquiring an amount of variation in a gaze direction of the user at ¶ [0150]. However, the indexes of these references are directly used to control lighting; they do not disclose determining, based on these indices, whether or not the user is in a divergent thinking state.
With regards to claims 19-24 and 26-29, these claims depend from claim 18 and 25, respectively, and therefore incorporate the features of those claims that were found allowable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al (US PG Pub. No. 2015/0289345).
With regards to claim 16, Lee discloses calculating an index selected from an amount of variation in a gaze direction of the user (i.e., how long a gaze does not vary from a “predetermined space”) at: ¶ [0150]
Lee discloses acquiring, from the memory, threshold information indicating a first threshold (“predetermined time”) corresponding to the at least one index (i.e., how long a gaze does not vary from a “predetermined space”) and performing a first process including comparing the first threshold with the at least one index at ¶ [0150]; to wit, “In the first mode, the device 100 determines whether an object is sensed for a predetermined time or longer, through the camera 160 (S420). That is, when the user gazes at a predetermined space for a predetermined time…” Acquiring the threshold from memory is inherent in the Lee reference because Lee is implemented on a computer. See, Lee at ¶ [0183]. The threshold (“predetermined time”) must necessarily be acquired from memory before the comparison may be performed.
Lee discloses controlling a lighting device illuminating a surrounding area of the user based on a result of the comparison included in the first process at ¶¶ [0151]-[0153].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US PG Pub. No. 2015/0289345) in view of Zhi-Zhong et al (Taiwan Pub. No. TW I765663 B).
With regards to claim 17, Lee discloses the camera generates a second image at ¶ [0088]. Lee does not specify the amount of variation in the face position is calculated based on face position and orientation and eye closure in addition to the gaze. However, these limitations were known in the art:
Zhi-Zhong discloses a second face position value determined based on the second image, the amount of variation in the face orientation is calculated based on the first image and a second face orientation value determined based on the second image, the amount of variation in the gaze direction is calculated based on the first image and a second gaze direction value determined based on the second image the eye closure percentage is calculated based on the first image and a second eye closure state determined based on the second image at pp. 4-6 of the English translation. At the time of filing of the present application, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use face and eye closure to control lights, as taught by Zhi Zhong, as a substitute for using only gaze to control lights, as taught by Lee. This combination is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The prior art contained a method, taught by Lee, which differed from the claimed method by the substitution of body movements used to control lighting. Using the recited eye closure and face were known in the art, as evidenced by Zhi-Zhong. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted Zhi-Zhong into the method taught by Lee and the results would have been predictable; to wit, lighting would be controlled by the user using the selected body feature.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID F DUNPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-1230. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 am - 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached on (571) 272-9752. 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.
/DAVID F DUNPHY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights