2019004494 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 24, 2020)

Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 24, 2020

2019004494 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 24, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/270,417 09/20/2016 Hiroki KANEMITSU KOMOP0229US 9076 72119 7590 12/24/2020 MARK D. SARALINO ( SHARP ) RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP 1621 EUCLID AVENUE 19TH FLOOR CLEVELAND, OH 44115 EXAMINER DHINGRA, PAWANDEEP ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2672 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/24/2020 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): ipdocket@rennerotto.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HIROKI KANEMITSU, NORIAKI TAGUCHI, and SHINICHI TAKEDA Appeal 2019-004494 Application 15/270,417 Technology Center 2600 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10, all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-004494 Application 15/270,417 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to “an image forming apparatus capable of detecting a user who approaches.” Spec., 1:10–11. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative: 1. An image forming apparatus comprising: an apparatus main body that performs an image forming process; and a detection device provided in the apparatus main body and detecting a user who approaches the apparatus main body, wherein the detection device has a detection range of which a bottom line is inclined obliquely upward when viewed from a horizontal direction, and an inclination angle of the bottom line with respect to a horizontal line is adjustable. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following references: Name Reference Date Matsuoka US 2007/0241896 A1 Oct. 18, 2007 Sugawara US 2008/0062444 A1 Mar. 13, 2008 Miyamoto US 2014/0002843 A1 Jan. 2, 2014 Baba US 2014/0104636 A1 Apr. 17, 2014 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Miyamoto and Baba. Final Act. 5– 11. Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Miyamoto, Baba, and Matsuoka. Final Act. 11– 14. Appeal 2019-004494 Application 15/270,417 3 Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Miyamoto, Baba, and Sugawara. Final Act. 14–15. OPINION The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 9 over Miyamoto and Baba The Examiner finds Miyamoto teaches most limitations of claim 1. See Final Act. 5–6; see also Ans. 14–17. The Examiner finds Miyamoto discloses first and second detection portions (Miyamoto Fig. 4, elements 71, 72) having first and second sensors (Miyamoto Fig. 4, elements 71a, 72a), and further finds: Miyamoto uses both the detection portions as the detection range to detect the user approaching the MFP 100 and fails to explicitly teach using only the 1st detection portion 71 with sensor 71a without using the 2nd detection portion 72 with sensor 72a while detecting the presence of [a] user approaching the MFP 100 and that an inclination angle of the bottom line with respect to a horizontal line is adjustable. Final Act. 6; see also Miyamoto Fig. 4 (elements 71, 71a, 72, 72a), Fig. 5 (depicting detection ranges of the detection portions and sensors). The Examiner reasons, “it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to not use the bottom half detection of user body using the 2nd detection device 72 and to use only the upper half part of user body using the 1st detection portion 71 to detect its approaching presence.” Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds Baba teaches “an inclination angle of the bottom line with respect to a horizontal line is adjustable.” Final Act. 7 (citing Baba Fig. 7, camera 30, arrow (bottom line) La, ¶¶ 90–93, 110). The Examiner reasons: It would have been advantageous to modify the image forming apparatus as disclosed by Miyamoto to include user face Appeal 2019-004494 Application 15/270,417 4 detection techniques as taught by Baba. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to positively detect the approaching user towards the apparatus and the face of the user for further confirmation of user’s intent & authentication as taught by Baba at paragraphs 90-93. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time [of] the invention to combine Miyamoto with Baba to reach the aforementioned advantage. Final Act. 7 (citing Baba ¶¶ 90–93). Appellant presents the following principal arguments: i. [W]hile the face of the user needs to be captured in Baba within the detection range La, in adjusting the orientation of the recognition camera 30 the optical axis is merely adjusted to be oriented to the face of the user and the inclination angle of the bottom line of the detection range La is not adjusted. Appeal Br. 10. “Baba adjusts as a reference line the optical axis, while claim 1 adjusts the bottom line of the detection range.” Appeal Br. 11. ii. One of ordinary skill would not have modified Miyamoto to detect only the upper have of a user’s body. See Appeal Br. 11–12. We are not persuaded of error in the contested findings of the Examiner. We concur with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s finding that Baba teaches “an inclination angle of the bottom line with respect to a horizontal line is adjustable” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 7 (emphasis omitted) (citing Baba Fig. 7, camera 30, arrow (bottom line) La, ¶¶ 90–93, 110). Adjusting the optical axis L (Baba, Fig. 7) causes the inclination angle of the bottom line of the detection range La (Baba, Fig. 7) to be adjusted because the optical axis L and bottom line of the detection range La are fixed relative to each other during the adjustment of the optical axis L. See Baba ¶¶ 90–91, Appeal 2019-004494 Application 15/270,417 5 Fig. 7. Thus, Appellant’s argument (i) does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s findings. Regarding Appellant’s argument (ii), although the Examiner determines that removing one of Miyamoto’s sensors is a design choice, we determine the open-ended language of claim 1 does not preclude the inclusion of additional elements, such as an additional sensor. Thus, Appellant’s argument (ii) does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s findings. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 8, and 9, which are not separately argued with particularity. See Appeal Br. 13. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 3 and 10 over Miyamoto, Baba, and Matsuoka Appellant does not present separate arguments for this ground of rejection. See Appeal Br. 13. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 10 for the same reasons discussed above. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 6 and 7 over Miyamoto, Baba, and Sugawara Appellant does not present separate arguments for this ground of rejection. See Appeal Br. 13. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 7 for the same reasons discussed above. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10 is affirmed. Appeal 2019-004494 Application 15/270,417 6 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9 103 Miyamoto, Baba 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9 3, 10 103 Miyamoto, Baba, Matsuoka 3, 10 6, 7 103 Miyamoto, Baba, Sugawara 6, 7 Overall Outcome 1–10 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED