CTNF 19/392,721 CTNF 85556 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. Note that citations to figures and elements should be understood to also implicitly refer to any pertinent explanatory text in the reference. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 10, 16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by US 2012/0127323 A1 (Kasuya) . Regarding claim 10, Kasuya teaches a device management system (Abstract; Fig. 1) comprising: a camera that captures an image (Fig. 1 at 4); a detector that detects an action by a user (Fig. 2 at 14); circuitry configured to recognize an object from the image captured by the camera ([36], [41], [48]: markers are recognized ) and in response to the action by the user ([75]: method engages in response to user input ), generate a partial image of the image based on a result of recognition of the object included in the image ([36], [71]; Figs. 3, 12); and a display that displays the partial image ([71]-[72]; Figs. 1, 3 at 6), wherein the circuitry is further configured to determine an area for the partial image in the image based on the result of the recognition of the object ([36], [43], [48]; Fig. 6). Regarding claim 16, Kasuya teaches a method (Abstract; Fig. 1) comprising: acquiring an image captured by a camera (Fig. 1 at 4); recognizing an object from the image captured by the camera ([36], [41], [48]: markers are recognized ); in response to an action by a user ([75]: method engages in response to user input ), generating a partial image of the image based on a result of recognition of the object included in the image ([36], [71]; Figs. 3, 12); and transmitting the partial image to a terminal including a display ([71]-[72]; Figs. 1, 3 at 6), wherein an area for the partial image in the image is determined based on the result of the recognition of the object ([36], [43], [48]; Fig. 6). Regarding claim 22, Kasuya teaches a non-transitory recording medium storing a plurality of instructions ([34]-[35]; Fig. 2 at 10, 11, 12, 13) which, when executed by one or more processors ([34]-[35]; Fig. 2 at 10), cause the one or more processors to perform a method (Abstract; Fig. 1) comprising: acquiring an image captured by a camera (Fig. 1 at 4); recognizing an object from the image captured by the camera ([36], [41], [48]: markers are recognized ); in response to an action by a user ([75]: method engages in response to user input ), generating a partial image of the image based on a result of recognition of the object included in the image ([36], [71]; Figs. 3, 12); and transmitting the partial image to a terminal including a display ([71]-[72]; Figs. 1, 3 at 6), wherein an area for the partial image in the image is determined based on the result of the recognition of the object ([36], [43], [48]; Fig. 6) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0384964 A1 (Kasuya) as applied to claim s 10 and 16, respectively , above, and further in view of US 2017/0068321 A1 (Kuo) . Regarding claim 11, Kasuya does not expressly teach wherein the detector detects the action by the user based on the image captured by the camera. Kuo teaches wherein the detector (Fig. 3 at 330, 340) detects the action by the user based on the image captured by the camera (Abstract; [28], [30], [34]). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Kasuya by the teaching of Kuo is present as both teach projection displays with cameras and with user input. The motivation is to increase input options for a user. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because both Kasuya and Kuo teach projection displays with cameras and with user input. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Kasuya and Kuo would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein the detector detects the action by the user based on the image captured by the camera . Regarding claim 17, Kasuya does not expressly teach wherein the action by the user is detected based on the image captured by the camera. Kuo teaches wherein the action by the user is detected based on the image captured by the camera (Abstract; [28], [30], [34]; Fig. 3). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Kasuya by the teaching of Kuo is present as both teach projection displays with cameras and with user input. The motivation is to increase input options for a user. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because both Kasuya and Kuo teach projection displays with cameras and with user input. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Kasuya and Kuo would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein the action by the user is detected based on the image captured by the camera . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0127323 A1 (Kasuya) as applied to claim s 10 and 16, respectively , above, and further in view of US 2019/0384964 A1 (Ando) . Regarding claim 14, Kasuya does not expressly teach wherein the circuitry is configured to recognize the object through machine learning. Ando teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to recognize the object through machine learning ([199]). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Kasuya by the teaching of Ando is present as Kasuya teaches identifying a two dimensional object and Ando teaches using machine learning to identify a two dimensional object. The motivation is to identify the object. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Kasuya teaches identifying a two dimensional object and Ando teaches using machine learning to identify a two dimensional object. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Kasuya and Ando would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein the circuitry is configured to recognize the object through machine learning . Regarding claim 20, Kasuya does not expressly teach wherein the object is recognized through machine learning. Ando teaches wherein the object is recognized through machine learning ([199]). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Kasuya by the teaching of Ando is present as Kasuya teaches identifying a two dimensional object and Ando teaches using machine learning to identify a two dimensional object. The motivation is to identify the object. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Kasuya teaches identifying a two dimensional object and Ando teaches using machine learning to identify a two dimensional object. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Kasuya and Ando would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein the object is recognized through machine learning . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0127323 A1 (Kasuya) as applied to claim s 10 and 16, respectively , above, and further in view of official notice . Regarding claim 15, Kasuya teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to recognize the object through pattern identification ([41], [107]). Kasuya does not expressly teach that the pattern identification is pattern matching. Official notice is taken that pattern matching was well known in the art. The suggestion to apply pattern matching to Kasuya is present as Kasuya teaches pattern identification and pattern matching is a well-known and ubiquitous form of pattern identification. The motivation is to implement pattern identification. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Kasuya and knowledge of pattern matching would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein the circuitry is configured to recognize the object through pattern matching . Regarding claim 15, Kasuya teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to recognize the object through pattern identification ([41], [107]). Kasuya does not expressly teach that the pattern identification is pattern matching. Official notice is taken that pattern matching was well known in the art. The suggestion to apply pattern matching to Kasuya is present as Kasuya teaches pattern identification and pattern matching is a well-known and ubiquitous form of pattern identification. The motivation is to implement pattern identification. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Kasuya and knowledge of pattern matching would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein the circuitry is configured to recognize the object through pattern matching . Allowable Subject Matter 07-43 Claims 12-13 and 18-19 are subject to objection 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 12-13 and 18-19, subject to objection as being dependent upon a rejected claim, would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, because the prior art cited to reject the aforementioned base and intervening claims does not subsequently teach or render obvious the dependent claims indicated as otherwise allowable in the full context of the claims. Nor does any observed additional prior art in combination with the cited prior art render obvious the dependent claims indicated as being allowable in the full context of the claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GENE W LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7148. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm. 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, 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. /Gene W Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624 Application/Control Number: 19/392,721 Page 2 Art Unit: 2624 Application/Control Number: 19/392,721 Page 3 Art Unit: 2624 Application/Control Number: 19/392,721 Page 4 Art Unit: 2624 Application/Control Number: 19/392,721 Page 5 Art Unit: 2624 Application/Control Number: 19/392,721 Page 6 Art Unit: 2624 Application/Control Number: 19/392,721 Page 7 Art Unit: 2624 Application/Control Number: 19/392,721 Page 8 Art Unit: 2624 Application/Control Number: 19/392,721 Page 9 Art Unit: 2624 Application/Control Number: 19/392,721 Page 10 Art Unit: 2624
Prosecution Insights