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 Interpretation
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.
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;
(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 limitation(s) uses 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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“signage display modules,” in claims 1-16.
“the communication module” in claim 12.
Applicant specification [0045] figures 1-2 show and teach a display 100 comprises a plurality of signage display modules 110. Figure 3 shows a signage display module 210. Figure 6A shows first and second signage display modules 610, 620.
Applicant specification [0050-0052] teaches the communication module 600, may include a wireless Internet module. The wireless Internet module refers to a module for wireless Internet access, which may be built into or external to the signage display device 10. The wireless Internet module may be configured to transmit and receive a wireless signal in a communication network according to wireless Internet technologies.” [0051-0052] further teach the wireless internet technologies in the communication module include Wi-Fi, LTE, Bluetooth, RFID, NFC, and a plurality of other well-known wireless protocols.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation, “wherein signals acquired by the plurality of sensors include sunlight emitted from the sun and then received and an RGB reflective light…” is grammatically awkward, specifically the, “and then received.” Examiner recommends removing these words or rewriting the limitation to state, “wherein signals acquired and received by the plurality of sensors include sunlight emitted from the sun [and then received] and an RGB reflective light.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8, 10-11, and 16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest representative related art to these claim limitations are applicant IDS cited Nadeson (US 20160306603 A1), Hrabe et al. (US 20210264572 A1) and Komatsu (US 20230018657 A1). The closest prior art does not teach each and every limitation of these claims.
For example, regarding claim 6, Nadeson teaches the processor determines the user is located in a sensing area of the first and second sensors, or a first swimming pool area formed above one or more display modules arranged adjacent to the first and second sensors ([0029], “The motion detection software of the system 10 may enable presence or absence of motion, and/or location, of a body of a swimmer in one or more zones of the swimming pool. The motion detection software may also enable size, height, width, location, zone, direction, and speed of the body to be determined.”).
Nadeson and Hrabe do not teach the processor determines, when an intensity of at least one of the extracted first and second reflective lights is above a first threshold and below a second threshold, that the user is located in a sensing area of the first and second sensors, and compares intensities of the extracted first and second reflective lights to determine a first swimming pool area where the user is located.
Komatsu teaches a system wherein an intensity of at least one of the extracted first and second reflective lights is above a first threshold and below a second threshold ([0045-0046]). This system however is not related to that of tracking the position of a user in a swimming pool. Hence, the closest related prior art does not teach each and every limitation of claims 6 and 16.
Claim 16 is objected to for the same reasons detailed above regarding claim 6 as claim 16 includes the allowable subject matter of claim 6.
Claims 7-8 are objected to as dependent upon claim 6.
Regarding claim 10, Nadeson teaches the device of claim 9, wherein the processor determines, when a sum of the intensities of the extracted RGB reflective lights is above a first threshold, that a user is present in a swimming pool area formed above the signage display module, and generates screen information to be output to the signage display module based on a result of the determination ([0029, 0031] teaches a controller and camera sensors 20 detect the presence of a user and adjusts a display. This teaches the signals being above a first threshold as a minimum light sensing threshold must exist to make the determination a user is present).
Komatsu teaches a system wherein an intensity of at least one of the extracted first and second reflective lights is above a first threshold and below a second threshold ([0045-0046]). This system however is not related to that of tracking the position of a user in a swimming pool such that when a sum of the intensities of the extracted RGB reflective lights is above a first threshold and below a second threshold, that a user is present in a swimming pool area formed above the signage display module, and generates screen information to be output to the signage display module based on a result of the determination. Hence, the closest related prior art does not teach each and every limitation of claim 10.
Claim 11 is objected to as dependent upon claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by applicant IDS cited Nadeson (US 20160306603 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Nadeson teaches a signage display device provided in an interactive swimming pool and a method of controlling the signage display device (Title, Figs. 1-4, [0026], “an interactive display system 10 for swimming pools”), the device comprising:
a display having a plurality of signage display modules (See fig. 1, [0026], “an interactive display system 10 for swimming pools according to an embodiment of the present invention may generally comprise a plurality of waterproof LED displays 12”);
a plurality of sensors that sense a user located in a swimming pool area formed above the signage display modules (Figs. 1-3, [0027] “The system 10 may further comprise one or more sensors 20 to detect or capture motion of a body either wholly or partially underwater in one or more zones of the swimming pool 14. The one or more sensors 20 may be wall- or floor-mounted in the swimming pool 14.” Fig. 3 shows a configuration wherein sensors are formed above the displays 12); and
a processor (Fig. 1, controller 16) that receives signals acquired by the plurality of sensors to detect a user located in the swimming pool area ([0027] “The system 10 may further comprise one or more sensors 20 to detect or capture motion of a body either wholly or partially underwater in one or more zones of the swimming pool 14 to enable the display parameters of the waterproof LED displays 12 to be varied by the controller 16 in response to user interaction.”).
Regarding claim 2, Nadeson teaches wherein the processor generates screen information associated with the detected user based on a result of the detection, and controls the generated screen information to be output to the signage display module ([0027] “The system 10 may further comprise one or more sensors 20 to detect or capture motion of a body either wholly or partially underwater in one or more zones of the swimming pool 14 to enable the display parameters of the waterproof LED displays 12 to be varied by the controller 16 in response to user interaction.”).
Regarding claim 3, Nadeson teaches wherein each of the plurality of sensors is an RGB illuminance sensor (Figs. 1-3, [0027] sensors 20 may comprise cameras. Applicant specification [0053] states, “[0053] "Additionally, an RGB illuminance sensor may be defined…” Therefore, this definition does not exclude cameras).
Regarding claim 12, Nadeson teaches the device of claim 2, further comprising:
a communication module operatively coupled to the processor ([0032], “the controller 16 may comprise a network or communications interface“),
wherein the processor controls the generated screen information to be transmitted to a peripheral device through the communication module and wherein the peripheral device is at least one of electronic devices that control lighting, music, and waves within a swimming pool ([0026], “the system 10 may further comprise a user interface 18 to the controller 16 to enable the display parameters of the waterproof LED displays 12 to be varied by the controller 16 in response to user input. The user interface 18 may comprise a user interface of a web application, a mobile application.” [0032], “mobile application on a smartphone or watch.”).
Regarding claim 13, Nadeson teaches the device of claim 2, further comprising:
a second display, wherein the processor controls the generated swimming pool screen information to be output to the second display (Fig. 1, see plurality of LED displays 12 thereby teaching a second display. See [0026, 0032] which teach a user interface 18 and interactive software 22 connected to controller 16 that allows for control of swimming pool LED Displays).
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 4-5, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadeson (US 20160306603 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 14, and further in view of Hrabe et al. (US 20210264572 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Nadeson teaches a sensor detects a user by RGB reflective light reflected on a user body part ([0027]). Nadeson also teaches receiving first and second signals acquired by first and second sensors among the plurality of sensors ([0027], “The system 10 may further comprise one or more sensors 20 to detect or capture motion of a body”). Nadeson does not teach the limitations, “wherein signals acquired by the plurality of sensors include sunlight emitted from the sun and then received, and wherein the processor receives the signals acquired by the plurality or first and second sensors, removes a DC component associated with the sunlight from the received first and second signals to extract first and second RGB reflective lights reflected on a swimmer body part and then received; and detecting a user based on intensities of the extracted first and second RGB reflective lights.
Hrabe teaches a system including a camera or imaging sensor (Fig. 2A) wherein signals acquired by the sensor include sunlight emitted from the sun and then received and an RGB reflective light reflected on a user body part and then received, and wherein the processor receives the signals acquired by the plurality of sensors which include first and second sensors ([0059] teaches a plurality of sensors including RGB light or camera sensors), removes a DC component associated with the sunlight to extract an RGB reflective light and then received ([0044], “the systems and methods of this disclosure at least: (i) allow robots or autonomous vehicles to detect sunlight in an image received by an imaging camera or sensor coupled to the robot or the autonomous vehicle; (ii) specifically remove areas of an image comprising noise due to sunlight”); and detecting intensities of the extracted first and second RGB reflective lights ([0005, 0035] teaches a camera detects high intensity noise caused by sunlight. [0045-0046] teaches a dynamic intensity threshold teaching the camera sensor detects intensities of light. [0059] teaches a plurality of sensors provide signals including RGB light detecting cameras). To the extent there is a difference between Hrabe's high intensity noise and the claimed DC component, such differences are an obvious substitution. MPEP 2144.06.
The combination of Nadeson and Hrabe arrive at the full claims 4 and 15 limitation wherein signals acquired by a plurality of sensors, such as first and second sensors, include sunlight emitted from the sun and then received and an RGB reflective light reflected on a user body part and then received, and wherein the processor receives the signals acquired by the plurality of sensors, removing a DC component associated with sunlight from the received first and second signals to extract first and second RGB reflective lights reflected on a swimmer body part and then received; and detect a user based on intensities of the extracted first and second RGB reflective lights. Nadeson teaches a camera sensor’s ability to detect RGB reflective light reflected on a swimmer body part and then received, and detects a user based on an intensity of the extracted RGB reflective light ([0027], “The system 10 may further comprise one or more sensors 20 to detect or capture motion of a body either wholly or partially underwater in one or more zones of the swimming pool 14.” [0029-0030], “the motion capture software of the system 10 may enable motion of a body, such as arm and leg motion during swimming, to be captured and biomechanically analysed.”). Hrabe teaches a system which can detect sunlight and remove a DC component associated with the sunlight to extract an RGB light.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Nadeson with Hrabe such that sunlight emitted from the sun is removed from the RGB sensed light readings as Hrabe teaches sunlight interferes with necessary imaging operations of a system and removing the sunlight improves the safety and accuracy of operation (Hrabe, [0044]).
Regarding claim 5, Nadeson teaches wherein each of the plurality of sensors is disposed between the plurality of signage display modules ([0027], “The one or more sensors 20 may be wall- or floor-mounted in the swimming pool 14.” Examiner notes this teaching includes the plurality of sensors disposed between the plurality of signage display modules as currently broadly recited), and
wherein the processor receives first and second signals acquired by first and second sensors among the plurality of sensors to extract first and second RGB reflective lights([0027] “The system 10 may further comprise one or more sensors 20 to detect or capture motion of a body either wholly or partially underwater in one or more zones of the swimming pool 14”).
Nadeson does not explicitly state the final limitation of detect a user based on intensities of the extracted first and second reflective lights.
Hrabe teaches a system including a camera or imaging sensors (Fig. 2A) which detect light based on extracted first and second reflective lights ([0005, 0035] teaches a camera detects high intensity noise caused by sunlight. [0045-0046] teaches a dynamic intensity threshold teaching the camera sensor detects intensities of light. [0059] teaches a plurality of sensors provide signals including RGB light detecting cameras).
The combination of Nadeson and Hrabe teach the claim 5 final limitation of detecting a user based on intensities of the extracted first and second reflective lights. As detailed in the claim 1 rejection above, Nadeson teaches detecting a user based on extracted first and second reflective lights ([0027]). Hrabe states first and second light intensities can be detected ([0005, 0035, 0045-0046, 0059]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Nadeson with Hrabe such that sunlight emitted from the sun is removed from the RGB sensed light readings as Hrabe teaches sunlight interferes with necessary imaging operations of a system and removing the sunlight improves the safety and accuracy of operation (Hrabe, [0044]).
Regarding claim 9, Nadeson teaches the device of claim 4, wherein each of the plurality
of sensors is disposed between pixels of the signage display module (See fig. 2 wherein camera 20 is disposed between pixels of a display as pixels will be located above and to the left or right of the camera), and wherein the processor extracts a RGB reflective light for each of a plurality of signals acquired by the plurality of sensors and detects a user based on an intensity of the RGB reflective light extracted for each of the plurality of signals ([0029, 0031] teaches a controller and sensors 20 detect the presence of a user).
Nadeson does not detail that the processor detects a user based on an intensity of the RGB reflective light extracted for each of the plurality of signals.
Hrabe teaches a system with a camera sensor and processor that detects an intensity of RGB reflective light extracted for each of the plurality of signals ([0005, 0035] teaches a camera detects high intensity noise caused by sunlight. [0045-0046] teaches a dynamic intensity threshold teaching the camera sensor detects intensities of light. [0059] teaches a plurality of sensors provide signals including RGB light detecting cameras).
The combination of Nadeson and Hrabe arrive at the full claim 9 limitation ]wherein the processor extracts a RGB reflective light for each of a plurality of signals acquired by the plurality of sensors, and detects a user based on an intensity of the RGB reflective light extracted for each of the plurality of signals.
Nadeson teaches a camera sensor’s ability to detect RGB reflective light reflected on a swimmer body part and then received, and detects a user based on an intensity of the extracted RGB reflective light ([0027], “The system 10 may further comprise one or more sensors 20 to detect or capture motion of a body either wholly or partially underwater in one or more zones of the swimming pool 14.” [0029-0030], “the motion capture software of the system 10 may enable motion of a body, such as arm and leg motion during swimming, to be captured and biomechanically analysed”). Hrabe teaches a system which can detect an intensity of RGB reflective light extracted for each of the plurality of signals ([0045-0046]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Nadeson with Hrabe such that a user’s position is detected based on an intensity of the RGB reflective light as Hrabe provides a method for removing unwanted interfering signals, such as sunlight from RGB sensed light readings as this improves the safety and accuracy of system operation (Hrabe, [0044]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200394804 A1, Barton et al. [0390, 0393] teach an imaging sensor is able to determine 3D position of a people in a pool area.
US 20240153109 A1, Konakalla et al. [0022] teaches a tracking device that tracks users in and around a swimming pool. Region.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN P BRITTINGHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7865. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10 AM - 6 PM, 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, Benjamin Lee can be reached at (571) 272-2963. 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.
/NATHAN P BRITTINGHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2629