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
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) 1-6, 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 20220415244 A1), in view of Sakata et al. (US 20110050656 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kang teaches: An information processing method performed by a computer (Fig. 1: CPU 3), comprising: displaying a content image on a display ([0008]: “The present disclosure provides an image display device and method having a display that is placed at a user's preferred position and displays an image with comfortable image quality and arrangement that match a user's viewing position and preference”); Kang does not specifically teach: determining whether or not a user's gaze is directed toward a work medium for the user to perform a task. However, Kang teaches: “The term information DA3 “state of the user obtained by camera, microphone, or sensor” used herein means information inferring the state of the user based on data from the camera 8, microphone 9, and sensor (not shown) of the video recording/reproducing device 10. This may be used to output scenery candidates that match the user's state when inferring recommended scenery candidates. For example, if it can be inferred that the user is looking down at the desk and concentrating, “calm landscape that allows concentration” may be output as a landscape candidate.” ([0079]). That is, Kang teaches to use a camera to determine whether a user is looking down at a desk. This necessarily involves gaze detection. However, if the camera does not in fact introduce gaze detection for the purpose of altering scenery of a display, in a related field Sakata teaches to use gaze detection to alter the state of a display (“Preferably, the audience state detecting unit detects an eye-gaze direction of the audience member as the audience state, and the interest degree estimating unit estimates that the interest degree is higher as the eye-gaze direction of the audience member detected by the audience state detecting unit is more similar to a direction from the audience member to either (i) a position of the display or (ii) a position at which the first content is displayed”, [0024]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kang with gaze detection such as taught by Sakata. Motivation for doing so would lie in altering the state of a display in response to user interest (Kang, [0079] and Sakata, [0066]: “The information displaying apparatus 10 has a feature of changing a clarity degree or an exposure degree of content displayed on a display (hereinafter referred to as "displayed content") depending on an interest degree of an audience member in displayed content”). Kang, in view of Sakata, further teaches: and changing, in a case where it is determined that the user's gaze is directed toward the work medium, a mode of the content image displayed on the display so that a level of visual attention from the user to the content image displayed on the display decreases (Kang: “The term information DA3 “state of the user obtained by camera, microphone, or sensor” used herein means information inferring the state of the user based on data from the camera 8, microphone 9, and sensor (not shown) of the video recording/reproducing device 10. This may be used to output scenery candidates that match the user's state when inferring recommended scenery candidates. For example, if it can be inferred that the user is looking down at the desk and concentrating, “calm landscape that allows concentration” may be output as a landscape candidate.” ([0079]; Sakata: “When the magnitude of the change rate of the interest degree estimated by the interest degree estimating unit 12 is smaller than a first threshold, the display control unit 13 causes the displaying unit 14 to display the content with the clarity degree or the exposure degree of at least a part of the content reduced below a predetermined clarity degree or a predetermined exposure degree”, [0077]), the display and the work medium being located at different physical locations, the work medium being not displayed on the display (Kang, [0117]: “The display 1 may be wall mounted and used as a virtual window.”).
Regarding Claim 2, Kang does not specifically teach: wherein changing the mode of the content image includes obscuring the content image. However, Sakata teaches: “When the magnitude of the change rate of the interest degree estimated by the interest degree estimating unit 12 is smaller than a first threshold, the display control unit 13 causes the displaying unit 14 to display the content with the clarity degree or the exposure degree of at least a part of the content reduced below a predetermined clarity degree or a predetermined exposure degree”, [0077]. It would have been further obvious to modify Kang to include a clarity changing effect to the display in response to the user’s gaze focusing on an alternate task. Motivation for doing so would lie in allowing the user to better focus on their alternate task (Kang, [0079] and Sakata, [0077]).
Regarding Claim 3, Kang, as modified above by Sakata, teaches: wherein in a case where it is determined that the user's gaze is directed toward the work medium, a degree of obscuration of the content image is increased in accordance with a length of time the user's gaze remains directed toward the work medium (Sakata, [0016]: “a state in which the magnitude of the change rate of the interest degree estimated by the interest degree estimating unit is smaller than the first threshold lasts for a predetermined time period.”).
Regarding Claim 4, Kang does not specifically teach: wherein the content image is a moving image, and changing the mode of the content image is changing a region corresponding to a moving subject included in the content image to a background image corresponding to the region. However, Kang teaches: “In FIG. 6, as an example, in the first image process 29, a frame binarization is performed and fast-moving objects are deleted, for example, birds in frames F1, F2, . . . are deleted, in the second image process 30, the display 1 is rendered as if the landscape in the rain is seen through the window (display of raindrops moving on the window). If desired, the sound of the video is also processed or corrected in conjunction with the image processing.”; Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kang, in view of Sakata, to delete fast moving objects such as taught by Kang in response to the mood of the user. Motivation for doing so would lie in providing a more calming, less distracting environment.
Regarding Claim 5, Kang does not specifically teach: wherein changing the mode of the content image includes reducing luminance of the content image. However, , Sakata teaches: “When the magnitude of the change rate of the interest degree estimated by the interest degree estimating unit 12 is smaller than a first threshold, the display control unit 13 causes the displaying unit 14 to display the content with the clarity degree or the exposure degree of at least a part of the content reduced below a predetermined clarity degree or a predetermined exposure degree”, [0077]. It would have been further obvious to modify Kang to include a clarity changing effect to the display in response to the user’s gaze focusing on an alternate task. Motivation for doing so would lie in allowing the user to better focus on their alternate task (Kang, [0079] and Sakata, [0077]).
Regarding Claim 6, Kang, in view of Sakata, teaches: wherein in a case where it is determined that the user's gaze is not directed toward the work medium after changing the mode of the content image, the mode of the content image is returned to a mode used before changing the mode of the content image (i.e. Kang, [0079] or Sakata, Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 9, Kang teaches: wherein the content image is an image that creates an ambience around the user (above teachings of Kang provide for different ambiance scenery).
Regarding Claim 10, Kang, in view of Sakata, teaches: wherein determining whether or not the user's gaze is directed toward the work medium includes performing a determination using sensing data detected by a sensor that detects at least a state of an eye of the user (i.e. using the camera cited above by Kang and as modified by Sakata).
Regarding Claim 11, Kang teaches: An information processing system comprising: a processor (Fig. 1: CPU 3), wherein the processor is configured to display a content image on a display ([0008]: “The present disclosure provides an image display device and method having a display that is placed at a user's preferred position and displays an image with comfortable image quality and arrangement that match a user's viewing position and preference”); Kang does not specifically teach: determines whether or not a user's gaze is directed toward a work medium for the user to perform a task. However, Kang teaches: “The term information DA3 “state of the user obtained by camera, microphone, or sensor” used herein means information inferring the state of the user based on data from the camera 8, microphone 9, and sensor (not shown) of the video recording/reproducing device 10. This may be used to output scenery candidates that match the user's state when inferring recommended scenery candidates. For example, if it can be inferred that the user is looking down at the desk and concentrating, “calm landscape that allows concentration” may be output as a landscape candidate.” ([0079]). That is, Kang teaches to use a camera to determine whether a user is looking down at a desk. This necessarily involves gaze detection. However, if the camera does not in fact introduce gaze detection for the purpose of altering scenery of a display, in a related field Sakata teaches to use gaze detection to alter the state of a display (“Preferably, the audience state detecting unit detects an eye-gaze direction of the audience member as the audience state, and the interest degree estimating unit estimates that the interest degree is higher as the eye-gaze direction of the audience member detected by the audience state detecting unit is more similar to a direction from the audience member to either (i) a position of the display or (ii) a position at which the first content is displayed”, [0024]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kang with gaze detection such as taught by Sakata. Motivation for doing so would lie in altering the state of a display in response to user interest (Kang, [0079] and Sakata, [0066]: “The information displaying apparatus 10 has a feature of changing a clarity degree or an exposure degree of content displayed on a display (hereinafter referred to as "displayed content") depending on an interest degree of an audience member in displayed content”). Kang, in view of Sakata, further teaches: and performs, in a case where it is determined that the user's gaze is directed toward the work medium, a process for changing a mode of the content image displayed on the display so that a level of visual attention from the user to the content image displayed on the display decreases (Kang: “The term information DA3 “state of the user obtained by camera, microphone, or sensor” used herein means information inferring the state of the user based on data from the camera 8, microphone 9, and sensor (not shown) of the video recording/reproducing device 10. This may be used to output scenery candidates that match the user's state when inferring recommended scenery candidates. For example, if it can be inferred that the user is looking down at the desk and concentrating, “calm landscape that allows concentration” may be output as a landscape candidate.” ([0079]; Sakata: “When the magnitude of the change rate of the interest degree estimated by the interest degree estimating unit 12 is smaller than a first threshold, the display control unit 13 causes the displaying unit 14 to display the content with the clarity degree or the exposure degree of at least a part of the content reduced below a predetermined clarity degree or a predetermined exposure degree”, [0077]), the display and the work medium being located at different physical locations, the work medium being not displayed on the display (Kang, [0117]: “The display 1 may be wall mounted and used as a virtual window.”).
Regarding Claim 12, Kang, in view of Sakata, teaches: wherein the display includes a back surface and a display surface where the content image is displayed, the display is located between a front seat of a vehicle and a rear seat of the vehicle, and a distance between the display surface and the rear seat is shorter than a distance between the back surface and the rear seat (the claim is not limiting such that the display(s) of either Kang or Sakata could not be carried into a vehicle and placed at such a location. That is, by moving the display(s) of Kang or Sakata into a vehicle, the claim limitations would be met by physically moving the display(s) to satisfy the spacing requirements).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW A EASON whose telephone number is (571)270-7230. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-4PM.
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 (571) 270-7230. 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.
/MATTHEW A EASON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights