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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wainwright (US 10,269,272 B1) in view of Lee (Publication No.: US 2019/0048541).
Regarding claim 1, 12, Wainwright teaches An electronic device, comprising: a substrate (e.g. the substrate upon which reference numeral 212 in Figure 2 are mounted) ; a set of light emitters (reference numeral 212 in Figure 2) on the substrate and arranged in a plurality of axisymmetric light emitter groups, each comprising multiple light emitters of the set of light emitters (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 2); and a set of optical fibers (reference numeral 214 in Figure 2) including multiple optical fibers each having a proximal end positioned to receive light, through a respective lens in the set of lenses, from the light emitters of a respective axisymmetric light emitter group in the plurality of axisymmetric light emitter groups; a distal end; and a bend between the proximal end and the distal end (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 7, Figure 9C). Wainwright differs from the claim invention in that it fails to specifically teach that of the set of lenses, each lens of the set of lenses disposed over a respective axisymmetric light emitter group of the plurality of axisymmetric light emitter groups. However, Lee teaches this concept is well known in the art (reference numeral 131 in Figure 4). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to concentrate the range of light emitted from the plurality of light emitting diodes (as in paragraph [0053] of Lee). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to utilize a set of lenses where each lens of the set of lenses is disposed over a respective axisymmetric light emitter group of the plurality of axisymmetric light emitter groups in Wainwright as taught by Lee.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of references and Wainwright in particular teaches The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the set of light emitters shares a set of epitaxial layers on the substrate (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 2 where LEDs 212 all reside on the same top layer).
Regarding claim 3, Wainwright teaches The electronic device of claim 1, wherein each optical fiber in the set of optical fibers has a respective bend between a respective proximal end and a respective distal end (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 7, Figure 9C).
Regarding claim 4, Wainwright teaches The electronic device of claim 3, wherein the respective bends of at least two optical fibers in the set of optical fibers have different curvatures (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 7, Figure 9C).
Regarding claim 8, Wainwright teaches The electronic device of claim 1, wherein an axisymmetric light emitter group comprises a subset of light emitters having respective beam axes disposed around an axis of the axisymmetric light emitter group (reference numeral 212 in Figure 2) .
Regarding claim 9, Wainwright teaches The electronic device of claim 8, wherein the axisymmetric light emitter group comprises a light emitter having a beam axis aligned with the axis of the axisymmetric light emitter group (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 2) .
Regarding claim 10, Wainwright teaches The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the set of lenses is formed in the substrate (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 2 and 6) .
Regarding claim 11, Wainwright teaches The electronic device of claim 1, wherein each optical fiber in the multiple optical fibers has a proximal end separated from a respective lens in the set of lenses by an air gap (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 2 where end of fibers 216 are separated from 212, 218).
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 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.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wainwright in view of Bradbury (Publication No.: US 2015/0182118 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Wainwright teaches The electronic device of claim 1, further comprising: a housing including (reference numeral 112, 110, 114 in Figure 1) , a sidewall; and a cover attached to the sidewall; a display positioned within the housing and viewable through the cover (inherent parts of “smartphone” as in column 4 lines 31-53 and throughout); and a camera barrel attached to the housing (inherent parts of “smartphone” as in column 4 lines 31-53 and throughout), wherein the substrate is attached to the housing (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 2). Wainwright differs from the claim invention in that it fails to specifically teach that the substrate is laterally offset from the camera barrel; and the distal end of each optical fiber in the multiple optical fibers is positioned around the camera barrel. However, Bradbury teaches that these concepts are well known in the art (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 19). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to utilize a substrate that is laterally offset from the camera barrel; and the distal end of each optical fiber in the multiple optical fibers is positioned around the camera barrel in order to provide a ring light (e.g. “ring light” as in paragraph [0208]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to utilize a substrate that is laterally offset from the camera barrel; and the distal end of each optical fiber in the multiple optical fibers is positioned around the camera barrel as taught by Bradbury in Wainwright.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of references and Wainwright in particular teaches The electronic device of claim 5, wherein the multiple optical fibers are positioned and oriented to direct light emitted by the set of light emitters through the cover (reference numeral 232 in Figure 2) .
Regarding claim 7, the combination of references and Wainwright in particular teaches The electronic device of claim 5, wherein: the housing defines a back surface opposite the cover (inherent parts of “smartphone” as in column 4 lines 31-53 and throughout); and the multiple optical fibers are positioned and oriented to direct light emitted by the set of light emitters through the back surface (e.g. “illuminate an area inside a product such as a purse.” as in column 8 lines 39).
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 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.
Claim(s) 13, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wainwright in view of Kalman (Publication No.: US 2021/0320726 A1) .
Regarding claims 13, 15- 17, Wainwright teaches the illumination projector of claim 12, but fails to specifically teach that each light emitter in the array of light emitters has a diameter that is less than a diameter of each optical fiber in the set of optical fibers, as in claim 13, or wherein each light emitter in the array of light emitters has a diameter that is greater than a diameter of each optical fiber in the set of optical fibers, as in claim 18. However, Kalman teaches that both of these concepts are well known in the art ((e.g. as illustrated in Figures 3a-7c; Figure 25b, 28a, 28b) as well as the concepts of claims 15-17. Furthermore, this feature apparently lacks criticality given the divergent subject matter claimed. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to select either arrangement of projector in order to meet design, budget, or performance requirements. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to design each light emitter in the array of light emitters so that it has a diameter that is less than a diameter of each optical fiber in the set of optical fibers, as in claim 13, or wherein each light emitter in the array of light emitters has a diameter that is greater than a diameter of each optical fiber in the set of optical fibers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the combined teachings of Wainwright and Lee.
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 AGUSTIN BELLO whose telephone number is (571)272-3026. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, David Payne can be reached at (571)272-3024. 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.
/AGUSTIN BELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635