DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to 06/10/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, change “based the determination” to “based on the determination”. Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1-3, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hofrichter et al. (US Pub. 2023/0317699), hereinafter Hofrichter.
Regarding claim 1, Hofrichter discloses a method comprising: emitting light by a display screen of an electronic device (pixels 11 comprise three micro-LEDs 12 (light emitters) for forming a display image (see fig. 1 and [0088]) … the light emitters emit light (see [0056])); detecting, by an ambient light sensor, light received by the ambient light sensor while the display screen is emitting light (see, for example, [0056]-micro photodetectors (13) are operated by a transceiver circuit during a detection time that coincides with or follows illumination time of the light emitters); and determining, based on the emitted light and on the light detected by the ambient light sensor, whether an object is present in the vicinity of the display screen (the transceiver circuit is configured to process the photo signals according to one of a list of sensing modes (see [0057]-[0058]), for example, in biometric authentication mode, determine whether at least a portion of light is reflected from an interface defined by a user’s body part located on or above the display surface (see [0059]), or in proximity sensing mode, determines a value that corresponds to a distance of an object, e.g., a body part with respect to the display-see [0060])).
Regarding claim 17, Hofrichter discloses a system comprising: a display screen of an electronic device (display 1-see fig. 1 and [0086]); an ambient light sensor (photodetector 13-see fig.1); and one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media storing instructions (see [0066]); and one or more processors coupled to the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media (see [0066]) and operable to execute the instructions to: emit light by the display screen; detect, by the ambient light sensor, light received by the ambient light sensor while the display screen is emitting light (see, for example, [0056]-micro photodetectors (13) are operated by a transceiver circuit during a detection time that coincides with or follows illumination time of the light emitters); and determine, based on the emitted light and on the light detected by the ambient light sensor, whether an object is present in the vicinity of the display screen (the transceiver circuit is configured to process the photo signals according to one of a list of sensing modes (see [0057]-[0058]), for example, in biometric authentication mode, determine whether at least a portion of light is reflected from an interface defined by a user’s body part located on or above the display surface (see [0059]), or in proximity sensing mode, determines a value that corresponds to a distance of an object, e.g., a body part with respect to the display-see [0060])).
Regarding claim 2, Hofrichter discloses wherein the electronic device comprises a wrist-worn device (the electronic sensing device can be … a wearable-see [0053] and [0111]).
Regarding claims 3 and 18, Hofrichter discloses wherein determining whether an object is present in the vicinity of the display screen further comprises determining whether an object is covering one or more of the display screen or the ambient light sensor (determining whether an object is located on or above a surface of the sensing device-see [0015], [0055], [0060], [0118], and fig. 19).
Regarding claim 20, Hofrichter discloses one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media storing instructions that are operable when executed by one or more processors (see [0066]) to: cause light to be emitted by a display screen of an electronic device (pixels 11 comprise three micro-LEDs 12 (light emitters) for forming a display image (see fig. 1 and [0088]) … the light emitters emit light (see [0056])); access a light signal detected by an ambient light sensor while the display screen is emitting light (see, for example, [0056]-micro photodetectors (13) are operated by a transceiver circuit during a detection time that coincides with or follows illumination time of the light emitters); and determine, based on the emitted light and on the light signal detected by the ambient light sensor, whether an object is present in the vicinity of the display screen (the transceiver circuit is configured to process the photo signals according to one of a list of sensing modes (see [0057]-[0058]), for example, in biometric authentication mode, determine whether at least a portion of light is reflected from an interface defined by a user’s body part located on or above the display surface (see [0059]), or in proximity sensing mode, determines a value that corresponds to a distance of an object, e.g., a body part with respect to the display-see [0060])).
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofrichter in view of Alvarez et al. (US Pub. 2017/0091850), hereinafter Alvarez.
Regarding claim 4, Hofrichter does not appear to expressly disclose wherein the object comprises an article of clothing worn by a user.
Alvarez is relied upon to teach wherein the object comprises an article of clothing worn by a user (perform clothing pattern recognition so as to identify clothing products or items a visitor or is wearing, by detecting shapes of clothing items carried or worn by the visitor, and then comparing the shapes to pre-defined shapes-[see [0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Alvarez with the invention of Hofrichter such that the determined object is an article of clothing, as taught by Alvarez, which facilitates electronic-based interactions between visitors while they are shopping in real-world shopping venues (see [0018]).
Regarding claim 5, Hofrichter discloses further comprising determining whether to estimate a circadian rhythm of a user based on the determination of whether the object is covering one or more of the display screen or the ambient light sensor (see [0063]-[0064]).
Claims 6-7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofrichter in view of Da-Yuan et al. (US Pub. 2022/0206587), hereinafter Da-Yuan.
Regarding claim 6, Hofrichter does not appear to expressly disclose further comprising: filtering a time series of the detected light; and determining, by a trained classifier, whether the filtered time series is classified as representative of an object covering one or more of the display screen or the ambient light sensor.
Da-Yuan is relied upon to teach further comprising: filtering a time series of the detected light; and determining, by a trained classifier, whether the filtered time series is classified as representative of an object covering one or more of the display screen or the ambient light sensor (see, for example, figs. 1-5 and [0085], which teaches that a data segmentation subsystem 506 may be configured to continuously receive sensor data 144 from a wearable device as a time series, and generate gesture classification data using a classifier514-see [0094]-[0095], figs. 5-6, and [0101]-[0112]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Da-Yuan with the invention of Hofrichter to include filtering a time series and using a trained classifier in determining whether an object is covering one or more of the display screen or the ambient light sensor, which constitutes applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Hofrichter does not appear to expressly disclose wherein determining whether an object is present in the vicinity of the display screen further comprises determining a gesture performed by the object relative to the display screen.
Da-Yuan is further relied upon to teach wherein determining whether an object is present in the vicinity of the display screen further comprises determining a gesture performed by the object relative to the display screen (see figs. 1-6 and [0112]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Da-Yuan with the invention of Hofrichter to include determining a gesture performed by the object relative to the display screen, as taught by Da-Yuan, which constitutes combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (i.e., using gestures to control real-world devices).
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofrichter in view of Da-Yuan, and further in view of Tanabe et al. (US Pub. 2021/0255764), hereinafter Tanabe.
Regarding claim 8, Hofrichter in view of Da-Yuan does not appear to expressly teach further comprising one or more of: determining that the object is moving towards the display screen in response to a determination that the light detected by the ambient sensor is increasing while the display screen is emitting light; or determining that the object is moving away from the display screen in response to a determination that the light detected by the ambient sensor is decreasing while the display screen is emitting light.
Tanabe is relied upon to teach further comprising one or more of: determining that the object is moving towards the display screen in response to a determination that the light detected by the ambient sensor is increasing while the display screen is emitting light; or determining that the object is moving away from the display screen in response to a determination that the light detected by the ambient sensor is decreasing while the display screen is emitting light (controller 11 can determine that detected object is approaching or moving away from proximity sensor 18, for example, when at least one of detection values of photodiodes (SU, SR, SD, and SL) relatively increases, the controller can determine that the detection object is approaching the electronic apparatus 1, and the controller 11 determines that the detection object is moving away from the electronic apparatus 1, when at least one of the detection values of the photodiodes relatively decreases-see [0072] and figs. 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Tanabe with the inventions of Hofrichter and Da-Yuan such that a controller can determine that an object is moving closer or moving away from a display screen based on measured sensor values, as taught by Tanabe, which constitutes combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (i.e., detect gestures made without contacting an electronic apparatus).
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofrichter in view of Da-Yuan, and further in view of Huang (US Pub. 2020/0205072).
Regarding claim 9, Hofrichter in view of Da-Yuan does not appear to expressly teach wherein emitting light by a display screen of an electronic device comprises emitting a predetermined pattern of light from the display screen.
Huang is relied upon to teach wherein emitting light by a display screen of an electronic device comprises emitting a predetermined pattern of light from the display screen (see, for example, [0072] and [0096], which teaches that display pixels of a display unit are configured to emit light with a predetermined pattern when a light source trigger is received by a light detection sensing layer, wherein the light detection sensing layer is configured to be in a light signal detection state and receive an image signal reflected by a user’s feature portion to capture the user’s feature information when a detection trigger signal is received).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Huang with the inventions of Hofrichter and Da-Yuan to include the display screen emitting light of a predetermined pattern, as taught by Huang, in order to provide a terminal that can adaptively adjust screen brightness when receiving a call, and therefore saving power consumption (see [0007]).
Claims 10-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofrichter in view of Da-Yuan as in claim 7, and further in view of Huang as in claim 9, and further in view of Kim et al. (US Patent 11,106,325), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 10, Hofrichter in view of Da-Yuan and Huang does not appear to expressly teach wherein the predetermined pattern of light comprises a predetermined sequence of illuminations of the display screen, each illumination in the sequence corresponding to different pattern of illumination on the display screen.
Kim is relied upon to teach wherein the predetermined pattern of light comprises a predetermined sequence of illuminations of the display screen, each illumination in the sequence corresponding to different pattern of illumination on the display screen (see, for example, fig. 12-13 with description in [col. 16, ll. 9-33]-a process in which an electronic apparatus 100 determines a moving direction of a hand 310 based on change or changing pattern in proximity sensor value and optical sensor value of light reflected from the hand. The processor may display a control image 125 with a predetermined color on a display 120 and sense a change or a change pattern in a sensor value of light reflected as the hand 310 moves from left to right).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kim with the inventions of Hofrichter, Da-Yuan, and Huang such that the predetermined pattern of light comprises a predetermined sequence of illuminations of the display screen, with each illumination screen corresponding to different pattern of illumination on the display screen, as taught by Kim, in order to provide an electronic apparatus and a control method thereof, in which a user motion for controlling an external apparatus is recognized without using a separate motion recognition sensor (see [col. 1, ll. 55-61]).
Regarding claim 11, Him is further relied upon to teach further comprising: determining, for each illumination in the sequence, an ambient light signal detected while the display screen is illuminated with that illumination in the sequence; determining a direction of movement of the object in a plane parallel to a plane of the display screen based on a difference between two or more different ambient light signals, each corresponding to a different illumination in the sequence (see fig. 13 with description in [col. 16, ll. 40-col. 17, ll. 23]-the electronic device may determine that motion direction of the hand 310 is oriented from left toward right of the electronic apparatus due to difference in position between first control image 126 and second control image 127).
Regarding claim 12, Kim is further relied upon to teach wherein the difference between the two or more different ambient light signals comprises a phase delay between the two or more different ambient light signals (see, for example, fig. 13(c)).
Regarding claim 14, Kim is further relied upon to teach wherein the predetermined pattern comprises a predetermined illumination shape (see figs. 12-13-processor 190 displays control image patterns (125-127)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kim with the inventions of Hofrichter, Da-Yuan, and Huang, such that the predetermined pattern comprises a predetermined illumination shape, as taught by Kim, which constitutes combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 15-16 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 limitations recited in the aforementioned claims are not taught or suggested by the references of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO2025/061402-entire document-may qualify as prior art in EPO.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARDIS F AZONGHA whose telephone number is (571)270-7706. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-7:00PM.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at (571)272-7776. 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.
/SARDIS F AZONGHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627