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 .
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 1-8, 10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20200043786) in the view Gook (KR 20140064492).
Regarding claim 1: Kim teaches an electronic device (Fig. 1 #100) comprising: at least one sensor; and at least one processor configured to execute the at least one instruction to: determine, through the at least one sensor, a location of a user, wherein the location comprises: a direction of the user with respect to the electronic device, select a target object in a first area, which corresponds to a direction in which the user is located, among an entire area displayed on the screen, and control the target object to be enlarged (Figs. 1, 11, 12 and paragraph [0027, 0031, 0033, 0061, 0079] teach at least one sensor or camera 120 and a processing module 130, wherein the processing module can determine or calculate the gaze direction of a user and the direction of the head of a user with respect to the display, an event generation unit 440 can move an object image of the object at which the user gazes for a first reference time or more to the center of the area of a first image and the object image can be enlarged).
Kim does not explicitly disclose a memory; a distance between the user and a screen on which an image, which is output from the electronic device, is displayed, and control the target object to be enlarged, based on the distance between the user and the screen being within a first threshold distance.
However, Gook teaches a memory; a distance between the user and a screen on which an image, which is output from the electronic device, is displayed, and control the target object to be based on the distance between the user and the screen being within a first threshold distance (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0046, 0086-0101] teaches a memory 160 to store instructions for the operation of the controller 180, an eye search unit (1230) can search for a user's eye by using a camera (121) and/or an infrared sensor and search for which point of a display unit (151) the user's eye is gazing at; and a detection unit (182) can detect the distance value between the user's eye and the display unit (151) by using a reflected infrared ray, and the screen information includes an object, the controller 180 may change at least one of the size, color, and position of the object displayed on the display unit 151 based on the detected distance value). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kim’s invention by including above teachings of Gook, because utilizing distance between the user and the display to customize or change the displayed information improves user experience, and is very well-known and widely used in the art, as shown by Gook. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claims 2 & 14: Combination of Kim and Gook teach wherein the at least one sensor comprises an image sensor and a position detection sensor, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine, through the image sensor, whether there is a gaze change of the user, and determine, through the position detection sensor, the distance between the user and the screen and the direction of the user with respect to the electronic device, based on a determination by the at least one processor that there is the gaze change of the user (Kim in Fig. 1 and paragraph [0042, 0061] teach acquiring a detection image for the user through a camera module; determining the gaze direction of the user on the basis of the detection image; and determine the direction of the user’s head with respect to the electronic device 110. Gook in Fig. 1 and paragraph [0086-0094] teach a detection unit (182) can detect the distance value between the user's eye and the display unit (151) by using a reflected infrared ray). See claim 1 rejection for combination reasoning of Kim and Gook, same rationale applies here.
Regarding claims 3 & 15: Kim teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine an area facing a gaze of the user at the location of the user as the first area of the screen, select the target object in the first area, and determine a coordinate value of the selected target object (Fig. 16 and paragraph [0098-0100] teach calculating a time for which a user's gaze is located within a predetermined range in a space or stops; determining whether a gaze time exceeds a first reference time; and enabling to determine whether an execution object exists in a gaze area).
Regarding claims 4-6: Combination of Kim and Gook teach wherein the memory comprises information about one or more objects in the image, and wherein the information comprises an attribute value of at least one of letters, numbers, characters, avatars, or user-customized objects; wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: compare attribute values of objects in the memory with an attribute value detected from at least one object in the first area, and select the at least one object as the target object, based on the at least one object matching any one of the objects in the memory; and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: control the target object in the first area to be enlarged, based on the user being located within the first threshold distance from the screen for a period of time, and store information about the target object in the memory (Gook in Fig. 6 and paragraph [0086-0093, 0113] teach the user interface or the screen information can include at least one object; the object can include at least one of an icon, a widget, a thumbnail image, and an application execution menu; a memory 160 can store pieces of user interface information respectively corresponding to positions of a user; and the user interface information can include at least one of pieces of information related to the sizes, the colors, the positions, the interval, and the alignment method of objects displayed on the display unit 151, and controlling the object in the first area to be enlarged, based on the user being located within the first threshold distance from the screen for a period of time). See claim 1 rejection for combination reasoning of Kim and Gook, same rationale applies here.
Regarding claims 7-8: Combination of Kim and Gook teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to update, in the memory, a history table comprising: information about a distance change value between the user and the target object; viewing time of the user for the target object; wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: calculate a priority of objects in the memory, based on the updated history table, and select the target object to be enlarged, based on the calculated priority from among objects in the first area (Gook in Fig. 6 and paragraph [0113, 0117] teach a memory 160 can store pieces of user interface information respectively corresponding to positions of a user; and the user interface information can include at least one of pieces of information related to the sizes, the colors, the positions, the interval, the alignment method of objects displayed on the display unit, information related to the sorting method (as history table) of the objects, and changing the size of object or enlarging the object based on the alignment method. Kim in paragraph [0098-0100] further discloses utilizing viewing time to enlarge objects). See claim 1 rejection for combination reasoning of Kim and Gook, same rationale applies here.
Regarding claim 10: Combination of Kim and Gook teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: control the first area comprising the target object to be enlarged on a portion of the entire area displayed on the screen, and control the first area comprising the target object to be enlarged on the entire area of the screen, based on the direction in which the user is located, based on the distance between the user and the screen being within a second threshold distance that shorter than the first threshold distance (Gook in Fig. 6 and paragraph [0114-0116] teach when the distance value between a user's eye and the display unit 151 changes from a first distance value to a second distance value, a control unit 180 can enlarge, on the basis of user interface information corresponding to the second distance value, the sizes of first to third objects 255-257 displayed on the display unit 151 and enlarge, on the basis of user interface information corresponding to the variation between the first and second distance values, the sizes of the first to third objects 255 to 257 displayed on the display unit 151). See claim 1 rejection for combination reasoning of Kim and Gook, same rationale applies here.
Regarding claim 12: Kim teaches wherein the electronic device comprises at least one of: a display panel on which the screen is provided, or a projector configured to project light onto the screen so that the image is displayed on the screen (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0027] teach the electronic device 100 comprises a display panel 110).
Regarding claim 13: Claim 13 recites similar claim limitations as in claim 1, except claim 13 is a method claim. Thus, all the arguments made above for claim 1 are applicable for claim 13.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20200043786), in the view Gook (KR 20140064492), and further in the view of Yasuda (US 20160231809).
Regarding claim 9: Combination of Kim and Gook teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to enlarge an object on the screen, based on the distance between the user and the screen being within the first threshold distance (Gook in Fig. 3 and paragraph [0097] screen information displayed on the display unit 151 can be controlled on the basis of the distance value between a user's eye and the display unit 151; and when the user is located outside a predetermined range with respect to the display unit 151, the sizes of objects included in the screen information displayed on the display unit 151 are automatically enlarged). See claim 1 rejection for combination reasoning of Kim and Gook, same rationale applies here.
Combination of Kim and Gook do not explicitly disclose to display a message asking the user whether to enlarge an object on the screen.
However, Yasuda teaches to display a message asking the user to perform the next function (Fig. 12 and paragraph [0101-0103] teaches to display a message #44 asking the user to perform the next function). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date to modify combination of Kim and Gook, by incorporating above teachings of Yasuda because Gook already teaches to enlarge the displayed information and asking user permission to perform that function avoids any errors and provides further control to user, as taught by Yasuda, similarly a message asking the user to whether to enlarge an object on the screen can be displayed. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20200043786), in the view Gook (KR 20140064492), and further in the view of Kim (US 20180120935).
Regarding claim 11: Combination of Kim and Gook do not explicitly disclose further comprising a communication module configured to communicate with a server, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive, through the communication module, information about objects from the server, and select, based on the received information, the target object from among at least one object included in the first area.
However, Kim ‘935 teaches further comprising a communication module configured to communicate with a server, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive, through the communication module, information about objects from the server, and select, based on the received information, the target object from among at least one object included in the first area (Figs. 6-7, 10A and paragraph [0146-0150] teach a communication module 240 configured to communicate with a server and receiving image or target object from the server as, wherein a first control unit 110 can search an external server for an image having high visibility, check related information (that is, position information of an original image) of a thumbnail image 810, and display an enlarged original image 814 on a touch screen 190). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date to modify combination of Kim and Gook, by incorporating above teachings of Kim ‘935 because receiving information from the server enhances the functionality of the device and improving user interaction, which is very well-known and widely used in the art, as shown by Kim ‘935. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim (US 1157121) in Figs. 3-4 and related description discloses when determining that the user uses the user terminal 100 at a close distance for a long time, while continuously providing the information that the user has been viewing, the controller 140 displays information displayed on the screen of the user terminal 100 in an increased or decreased size from the original size so as to cause the user to voluntarily move away from the user terminal 100. Of course, in addition to increasing or decreasing the size of the screen, when determining that the user uses the user terminal 100 for a predetermined time or longer at a distance less than a predetermined distance, the controller 140 may operate in the eye protection mode and perform image processing on the image information output on the screen by a predetermined method and output the same so as to cause the user to voluntarily move away from the user terminal 100. When the distance between the user terminal and the user is equal to or greater than the reference distance, the controller 140 may redisplay the image information in the original form. When the user changes the distance between the user terminal 100 to a certain distance or farther and maintains at that distance, the controller 140 adjusts the size of the information of the screen back to the original form and outputs the same, so that the distance between the user and the user terminal 100 may be maintained constant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIT CHATLY whose telephone number is (571)270-1610. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 5712707230. 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.
/AMIT CHATLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624