DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 12/8/2025. In virtue of this communication claims 1-4, 7-13 and 15-19 are currently pending in the instant application.
Response to Amendment
In response to the action mailed on 7/7/2025, the Applicant has filed a response amending the claims.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new references and/or interpretation being used in the current rejection.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 8-13, 15 and 17-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nevou et al (US Pub 20240134483) in view of Singer et al (US Pub 20190302268) in further view of Zilkie et al (US Pub 20230003938).
Regarding Claim 1. Nevou discloses an electronic device comprising:
an optical sensing system for detecting proximity of an object external to the electronic device (Fig 2, where an optical device (1) comprises an optical sensing system (3) for detecting proximity of an object (5) external to the optical device (1)), the optical sensing system comprising:
a transmitter/receiver comprising:
a light emitter configured to emit light toward the object (Fig 2, where the optical sensing system (3) comprises a transmitter/receiver with a light emitter (7) configured to emit light toward the object (5)); and
a light sensor configured to receive light reflected from the object (Fig 2, where the optical sensing system (3) comprises a transmitter/receiver with a light sensor (8) configured to receive light reflected from the object (5)).
Nevou fails to explicitly disclose the light sensor being a light sensor array comprising at least two light sensors, and the optical sensing system comprising an optical waveguide optically coupling the light emitter and the light sensor array.
However, Singer discloses
a light sensor being a light sensor array comprising at least two light sensors (Fig 3, where an optical sensing system (110) comprises a transmitter/receiver with a light sensor being a light sensor array (280) and the light sensor array (280) comprises at least two light sensors (e.g. 280a, 280b)); and
an optical sensing system comprising an optical waveguide optically coupling a light emitter and the light sensor array (Fig 3, where the optical sensing system (110) comprises a transmitter/receiver with an optical waveguide (e.g. 240) for optically coupling a light emitter (e.g. 210) and the light sensor array (280)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the optical sensing system (3) as described in Nevou, with the teachings of the optical sensing system (110) as described in Singer. The motivation being is that as shown an optical sensing system (110) can comprise a transmitter/receiver with a light sensor array (280) having at least two light sensors (e.g. 280a, 280b) and with an optical waveguide (e.g. 240) for optically coupling a light emitter (e.g. 210) and the light sensor array (280) and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the optical sensing system (3) as described in Nevou and have the optical sensing system (3) comprise a transmitter/receiver with a light sensor array (280) having at least two light sensors (e.g. 280a, 280b) and with an optical waveguide (e.g. 240) for optically coupling a light emitter (e.g. 210) and the light sensor array (280) i.e. as an alternative so as to have the optical sensing system (3) with a known technique of a known optical sensing system (110) for the purpose of optimally determining distance and speed/ velocity of the object (5) (Singer para [55]) and where the light emitter (e.g. 210) and the light sensor array (280) are used instead of the light emitter (7) and the light sensor (8) in order to have the optical sensing system (3) with an extended field of view and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. optical sensors for determining distance and speed/ velocity of a target/object) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known optical sensing system (110) into another similar optical sensing system (3), namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Nevou as modified by Singer fails to explicitly disclose the transmitter/receiver being a photonic integrated circuit.
However, Zilkie discloses
a transmitter/receiver being a photonic integrated circuit (Fig 6, where a transmitter/receiver (TRx) having a light emitter (e.g. 24), a light sensor (30) and an optical waveguide (e.g. 25) is formed as a photonic integrated circuit (PIC)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the transmitter/receiver as described in Nevou as modified by Singer, with the teachings of the transmitter/receiver (TRx) as described in Zilkie. The motivation being is that as shown a transmitter/receiver (TRx) having a light emitter (e.g. 24), a light sensor (30) and an optical waveguide (e.g. 25) can be formed as a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the transmitter/ receiver as described in Nevou as modified by Singer and have the transmitter/receiver with the light emitter (e.g. 210), the light sensor array (280) and the optical waveguide (e.g. 240) be formed as a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) i.e. as an alternative so as to have the transmitter/receiver with a known technique of a known transmitter/receiver (TRx) for the purpose of optimally integrating the light emitter (e.g. 210), the light sensor array (280) and the optical waveguide (e.g. 240) into a known integrated circuit/chip (e.g. a PIC) and where such integration technique provides a device that is small in size, cost effective, easy to handle and with superior performance and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. optical transmitters/ receivers) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known transmitter/receiver (TRx) into another similar transmitter/receiver, namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results. Furthermore, the courts found that integrating known prior art elements (e.g. light emitter (e.g. 210), light sensor array (280) and optical waveguide (e.g. 240)) into a single piece (e.g. a photonic integrated circuit (PIC)) is an obvious engineering choice and is not patentable. See MPEP 2144.04 section B. Making Integral.
Regarding Claim 2. Nevou as modified by Singer and Zilkie also discloses the electronic device, wherein the light emitter comprises a laser (Singer Fig 3, where the light emitter (e.g. 210) comprises a laser).
Regarding Claim 8. Nevou as modified by Singer and Zilkie also discloses the electronic device, comprising a display, wherein the optical sensing system is disposed such that the light emitter is configured to emit light through the display (Nevou Fig 2, where the optical device (1) comprises a display (2) and the optical sensing system (3, 110) is disposed such that the light emitter (7, 210) is configured to emit light through the display (2)).
Regarding Claim 9. Nevou as modified by Singer and Zilkie also discloses the electronic device, wherein the light sensor array is configured to receive light reflected from the object that has passed through the display (Nevou Fig 2, where the light sensor array (8, 280) is configured to receive light reflected from the object (5) that has passed through the display (2)).
Regarding Claim 10. Nevou as modified by Singer and Zilkie also discloses the electronic device, wherein the optical waveguide comprises a beam splitter (Singer Fig 3, where the optical waveguide (e.g. 240) comprises a beam splitter (para [40])).
Regarding Claim 11. Nevou discloses an electronic device comprising:
a housing (Fig 2, where an optical device (1) comprises a housing (i.e. of a smartphone) (para [26]));
a display within the housing (Fig 2, where the optical device (1) comprises a display (2) within the housing (i.e. of a smartphone) (para [26])); and
an optical sensing system positioned within the housing and behind the display (Fig 2, where the optical device (1) comprises an optical sensing system (3) positioned within the housing (i.e. of a smartphone) (para [26]) and behind the display (2)) the optical sensing system comprising:
a transmitter/receiver comprising:
a laser light emitter configured to emit light through the display toward an object external to the electronic device (Fig 2, where the optical sensing system (3) comprises a transmitter/receiver with a laser light emitter (7) configured to emit light through the display (2) toward an object (5) external to the optical device (1)); and
a photodiode configured to receive light reflected from the object that has passed through the display (Fig 2, where the optical sensing system (3) comprises a transmitter/receiver with a photodiode (8) configured to receive light reflected from the object (5) that has passed through the display (2)).
Nevou fails to explicitly disclose the photodiode comprises a first photodiode and a second photodiode, and the optical sensing system comprises an optical waveguide optically coupling the laser light emitter and at least one of the first photodiode and the second photodiode.
However, Singer discloses
a photodiode comprises a first photodiode and a second photodiode (Fig 3, where an optical sensing system (110) comprises a transmitter/receiver with a photodiode (280) and the photodiode (280) comprises a first photodiode (280a) and a second photodiode (280b)); and
an optical sensing system comprises an optical waveguide optically coupling a laser light emitter and at least one of the first photodiode and the second photodiode (Fig 3, where the optical sensing system (110) comprises a transmitter/receiver with an optical waveguide (e.g. 240) for optically coupling a laser light emitter (e.g. 210) and at least one of the first photodiode (e.g. 280a) and the second photodiode (e.g. 280b)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the optical sensing system (3) as described in Nevou, with the teachings of the optical sensing system (110) as described in Singer. The motivation being is that as shown an optical sensing system (110) can comprise a transmitter/receiver with a photodiode (280) having at least two photodiodes (e.g. 280a, 280b) and with an optical waveguide (e.g. 240) for optically coupling a laser light emitter (e.g. 210) and at least one of a first photodiode (e.g. 280a) and a second photodiode (e.g. 280b) and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the optical sensing system (3) as described in Nevou and have the optical sensing system (3) comprise a transmitter/receiver with a photodiode (280) having at least two photodiodes (e.g. 280a, 280b) and with an optical waveguide (e.g. 240) for optically coupling a light emitter (e.g. 210) and at least one of a first photodiode (e.g. 280a) and a second photodiode (e.g. 280b) i.e. as an alternative so as to have the optical sensing system (3) with a known technique of a known optical sensing system (110) for the purpose of optimally determining distance and speed/ velocity of the object (5) (Singer para [55]) and where the laser light emitter (e.g. 210) and the photodiodes (e.g. 280a, 280b) are used instead of the laser light emitter (7) and the photodiode (8) in order to have the optical sensing system (3) with an extended field of view and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. optical sensors for determining distance and speed/ velocity of a target/object) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known optical sensing system (110) into another similar optical sensing system (3), namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Nevou as modified by Singer fails to explicitly disclose the transmitter/receiver being a photonic integrated circuit.
However, Zilkie discloses
a transmitter/receiver being a photonic integrated circuit (Fig 6, where a transmitter/receiver (TRx) having a light emitter (e.g. 24), a light sensor (30) and an optical waveguide (e.g. 25) is formed as a photonic integrated circuit (PIC)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the transmitter/receiver as described in Nevou as modified by Singer, with the teachings of the transmitter/receiver (TRx) as described in Zilkie. The motivation being is that as shown a transmitter/receiver (TRx) having a light emitter (e.g. 24), a light sensor (30) and an optical waveguide (e.g. 25) can be formed as a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the transmitter/ receiver as described in Nevou as modified by Singer and have the transmitter/receiver with the light emitter (e.g. 210), the light sensor array (280) and the optical waveguide (e.g. 240) be formed as a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) i.e. as an alternative so as to have the transmitter/receiver with a known technique of a known transmitter/receiver (TRx) for the purpose of optimally integrating the light emitter (e.g. 210), the light sensor array (280) and the optical waveguide (e.g. 240) into a known integrated circuit/chip (e.g. a PIC) and where such integration technique provides a device that is small in size, cost effective, easy to handle and with superior performance and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. optical transmitters/ receivers) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known transmitter/receiver (TRx) into another similar transmitter/receiver, namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results. Furthermore, the courts found that integrating known prior art elements (e.g. light emitter (e.g. 210), light sensor array (280) and optical waveguide (e.g. 240)) into a single piece (e.g. a photonic integrated circuit (PIC)) is an obvious engineering choice and is not patentable. See MPEP 2144.04 section B. Making Integral.
Regarding Claim 12. Nevou as modified by Singer and Zilkie also discloses the electronic device, wherein the optical waveguide optically couples the laser light emitter to both the first photodiode and the second photodiode (Singer Fig 3, where the optical waveguide (e.g. 240) optically couples the laser light emitter (e.g. 210) to both the first photodiode (e.g. 280a) and the second photodiode (e.g. 280b)).
Regarding Claim 13. Nevou as modified by Singer and Zilkie also discloses the electronic device, wherein the optical sensing system comprises a processor configured to receive output from the first photodiode and the second photodiode and to determine therewith a velocity of and a distance to the object (Singer Fig 3, where the optical sensing system (110) comprises a processor (e.g. 290) configured to receive output from the first photodiode (e.g. 280a) and the second photodiode (e.g. 280b) and determine a speed/ velocity of and a distance to an object/target (140) (para [55])).
Regarding Claim 15. Nevou as modified by Singer and Zilkie also discloses the electronic device, wherein:
the optical waveguide is a first optical waveguide optically coupling the laser light emitter to the first photodiode (Singer Fig 3, where the optical waveguide (e.g. 240) is a first optical waveguide optically coupling the laser light emitter (e.g. 210) to the first photodiode (e.g. 280a)); and
the optical sensing system comprises a second optical waveguide optically coupling the laser light emitter to the second photodiode (Singer Fig 3, where the optical sensing system (110) comprises a second optical waveguide (e.g. 270) optically coupling the laser light emitter (e.g. 210) to the second photodiode (e.g. 280b)).
Regarding Claim 17. Nevou as modified by Singer and Zilkie also discloses the electronic device, wherein the display is an organic light-emitting diode display (Nevou Fig 2, where the display (2) is an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display (para [39])).
Regarding Claim 18. Nevou as modified by Singer and Zilkie also discloses the electronic device, wherein the optical waveguide defines an optical path including at least a portion of the display (Singer Fig 3, where the optical waveguide (e.g. 240) defines an optical path towards an object/target (5, 140) and such optical path includes at least a portion of the display (2) (as shown in Nevou Fig 2)).
Claims 3-4, 7 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nevou et al (US Pub 20240134483) in view of Singer et al (US Pub 20190302268) in further view of Zilkie et al (US Pub 20230003938) in further view of Dodley et al (US Pat 5966229).
Regarding Claim 3. Nevou as modified by Singer and Zilkie fails to explicitly disclose the electronic device, wherein the laser is an infrared laser.
However, Dodley discloses
a laser being an infrared laser (Fig 1, where a light emitter (e.g. 18) comprises a laser that is an infrared laser (col 2 lines 62-64)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light emitter (e.g. 210) as described in Nevou as modified by Singer and Zilkie, with the teachings of the light emitter (e.g. 18) as described in Dodley. The motivation being is that as shown a light emitter (e.g. 18) can comprise a laser that is an infrared laser and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the light emitter (e.g. 210) as described in Nevou as modified by Singer and Zilkie and have the light emitter (e.g. 210) comprise a laser that is an infrared laser i.e. as an alternative so as to have the light emitter (e.g. 210) with a known technique of a known light emitter (e.g. 18) for the purpose of optimally transmitting light in a designated infrared light spectrum and where such infrared light is safe and has low power consumption and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. DFB lasers) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known light emitter (e.g. 18) into another similar light emitter (e.g. 210), namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Regarding Claim 4. Nevou as modified by Singer and Zilkie and Dodley also discloses the electronic device, wherein the optical waveguide is formed from silicon (Singer Fig 3, where the optical waveguide (e.g. 240) is an on-chip waveguide splitter (para [40]) and it is known in the art that silicon is a material that forms the on-chip waveguide splitter).
Regarding Claim 7. Nevou as modified by Singer and Zilkie fails to explicitly disclose the electronic device, wherein the light sensor array comprises at least one infrared photodiode.
However, Dodley discloses
a light sensor comprises at least one infrared photodiode (Fig 1, where a light sensor (e.g. 28, 38) comprises at least one infrared photodiode (i.e. because light emitter (18) is an infrared laser) (col 2 lines 62-64)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light sensor array (280) as described in Nevou as modified by Singer and Zilkie, with the teachings of the light sensor (e.g. 28, 38) as described in Dodley. The motivation being is that as shown a light sensor (e.g. 28, 38) can comprise at least one infrared photodiode (i.e. because light emitter (18) is an infrared laser) and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the light sensor array (280) as described in Nevou as modified by Singer and Zilkie and have the light sensor array (280) comprise at least one infrared photodiode (i.e. because light emitter (e.g. 210) is an infrared laser) i.e. as an alternative so as to have the light sensor array (280) with a known technique of a known light sensor (e.g. 28, 38) for the purpose of optimally receiving light in a designated infrared light spectrum and where such infrared light is safe and has low power consumption and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. DFB lasers, photodetectors/ photodiodes) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known light sensor (e.g. 28, 38) into another similar light sensor array (280), namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Regarding Claim 16. Nevou as modified by Singer and Zilkie also discloses the electronic device, wherein the first optical waveguide and the second optical waveguide are formed from silicon (Singer Fig 3, where the first optical waveguide (e.g. 240) and the second optical waveguide (e.g. 270) are on-chip waveguide splitters (para [40]) and it is known in the art that silicon is a material that forms the on-chip waveguide splitters).
Nevou as modified by Singer and Zilkie fails to explicitly disclose the laser light emitter being configured to emit infrared light.
However, Dodley discloses
a laser light emitter being configured to emit infrared light (Fig 1, where a laser light emitter (e.g. 18) is configured to emit infrared light (col 2 lines 62-64)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the laser light emitter (e.g. 210) as described in Nevou as modified by Singer and Zilkie, with the teachings of the laser light emitter (e.g. 18) as described in Dodley. The motivation being is that as shown a laser light emitter (e.g. 18) can emit infrared light and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the laser light emitter (e.g. 210) as described in Nevou as modified by Singer and Zilkie and have the laser light emitter (e.g. 210) emit infrared light i.e. as an alternative so as to have the laser light emitter (e.g. 210) with a known technique of a known laser light emitter (e.g. 18) for the purpose of optimally transmitting light in a designated infrared light spectrum and where such infrared light is safe and has low power consumption and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. DFB lasers) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known laser light emitter (e.g. 18) into another similar laser light emitter (e.g. 210), namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Claim 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nevou et al (US Pub 20240134483) in view of Singer et al (US Pub 20190302268) in further view of Dodley et al (US Pat 5966229) in further view of Becker et al (US Pub 20160146938) in further view of Zilkie et al (US Pub 20230003938).
Regarding Claim 19. Nevou discloses an electronic device comprising:
a housing (Fig 2, where an optical device (1) comprises a housing (i.e. of a smartphone) (para [26]));
an organic light-emitting diode display within the housing (Fig 2, where the optical device (1) comprises an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display (2) (para [39]) within the housing (i.e. of a smartphone) (para [26])); and
an optical proximity sensing system positioned within the housing and behind the organic light-emitting diode display (Fig 2, where the optical device (1) comprises an optical proximity sensing system (3) positioned within the housing (i.e. of a smartphone) (para [26]) and behind the organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display (2) (para [39])), the optical proximity sensing system comprising:
a transmitter/receiver comprising:
a laser configured to emit laser light through the organic light-emitting diode display toward an object external to the electronic device (Fig 2, where the optical proximity sensing system (3) comprises a transmitter/receiver with a laser (7) configured to emit laser light through the organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display (2) (para [39]) toward an object (5) external to the optical device (1));
a photodiode to receive light reflected from the object that has passed through the organic light-emitting diode display (Fig 2, where the optical proximity sensing system (3) comprises a transmitter/receiver with a photodiode (8) to receive light reflected from the object (5) that has passed through the organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display (2) (para [39])).
Nevou fails to explicitly disclose the optical proximity sensing system comprises a waveguide optically coupling output from the laser and to the photodiode.
However, Singer discloses
an optical sensing system comprising a waveguide optically coupling output from a laser and to a photodiode (Fig 3, where an optical sensing system (110) comprises a transmitter/receiver with a waveguide (e.g. 240) for optically coupling output from a laser (e.g. 210) and to a photodiode (e.g. 280)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the optical proximity sensing system (3) as described in Nevou, with the teachings of the optical sensing system (110) as described in Singer. The motivation being is that as shown an optical sensing system (110) can comprise a transmitter/receiver with a waveguide (e.g. 240) for optically coupling output from a laser (e.g. 210) and to a photodiode (e.g. 280) and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the optical proximity sensing system (3) as described in Nevou and have the optical proximity sensing system (3) comprise a transmitter/receiver with a waveguide (e.g. 240) for optically coupling output from a laser (e.g. 210) and to a photodiode (e.g. 280) i.e. as an alternative so as to have the optical proximity sensing system (3) with a known technique of a known optical sensing system (110) for the purpose of optimally determining distance and speed/velocity of the object (5) (Singer para [55]) and where the laser (e.g. 210) and the photodiode (e.g. 280) are used instead of the laser (7) and the photodiode (8) in order to have the optical proximity sensing system (3) with an extended field of view and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. optical sensors for determining distance and speed/velocity of a target/object) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known optical sensing system (110) into another similar optical proximity sensing system (3), namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Nevou as modified by Singer fails to explicitly disclose the laser being an infrared laser.
However, Dodley discloses
a laser being an infrared laser (Fig 1, where a laser (e.g. 18) is an infrared laser (col 2 lines 62-64)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the laser (e.g. 210) as described in Nevou as modified by Singer, with the teachings of the laser (e.g. 18) as described in Dodley. The motivation being is that as shown a laser (e.g. 18) can be an infrared laser and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the laser (e.g. 210) as described in Nevou as modified by Singer and have the laser (e.g. 210) be an infrared laser i.e. as an alternative so as to have the laser (e.g. 210) with a known technique of a known laser (e.g. 18) for the purpose of optimally transmitting light in a designated infrared light spectrum and where such infrared light is safe and has low power consumption and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. DFB lasers) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known laser (e.g. 18) into another similar laser (e.g. 210), namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Nevou as modified by Singer and Dodley fails to explicitly disclose the optical proximity sensing system comprises a collimator positioned below the organic light-emitting diode display.
However, Becker discloses
an optical proximity sensing system comprises a collimator being positioned below a display (Fig 7, where an optical proximity sensing system (700) comprises a collimator (780) (para [33]) being positioned below a display (740) and above a light source (760)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the optical proximity sensing system (3) as described in Nevou as modified by Singer and Dodley, with the teachings of the optical proximity sensing system (700) as described in Becker. The motivation being is that as shown an optical proximity sensing system (700) can comprise a collimator (780) being positioned below a display (740) and above a light source (760) and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the optical proximity sensing system (3) as described in Nevou as modified by Singer and Dodley and have the optical proximity sensing system (3) comprise a collimator (780) being positioned below the organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display (2) and above a light source (7, 210) i.e. as an alternative so as to have the optical proximity sensing system (3) with a known technique of a known optical proximity sensing system (700) for the purpose of optimally guiding and directing light from the light source (7, 210) to an ideal position and which prevents light reflections and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. optical proximity sensing systems) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known optical proximity sensing system (700) into another similar optical proximity sensing system (3), namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Nevou as modified by Singer and Dodley and Becker fails to explicitly disclose the transmitter/receiver being a photonic integrated circuit.
However, Zilkie discloses
a transmitter/receiver being a photonic integrated circuit (Fig 6, where a transmitter/receiver (TRx) having a light emitter (e.g. 24), a light sensor (30) and an optical waveguide (e.g. 25) is formed as a photonic integrated circuit (PIC)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the transmitter/receiver as described in Nevou as modified by Singer and Dodley and Becker, with the teachings of the transmitter/receiver (TRx) as described in Zilkie. The motivation being is that as shown a transmitter/receiver (TRx) having a light emitter (e.g. 24), a light sensor (30) and an optical waveguide (e.g. 25) can be formed as a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the transmitter/ receiver as described in Nevou as modified by Singer and Dodley and Becker and have the transmitter/receiver with the light emitter (e.g. 210), the light sensor array (280) and the optical waveguide (e.g. 240) be formed as a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) i.e. as an alternative so as to have the transmitter/receiver with a known technique of a known transmitter/receiver (TRx) for the purpose of optimally integrating the light emitter (e.g. 210), the light sensor array (280) and the optical waveguide (e.g. 240) into a known integrated circuit/chip (e.g. a PIC) and where such integration technique provides a device that is small in size, cost effective, easy to handle and with superior performance and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. optical transmitters/ receivers) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known transmitter/receiver (TRx) into another similar transmitter/receiver, namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results. Furthermore, the courts found that integrating known prior art elements (e.g. light emitter (e.g. 210), light sensor array (280) and optical waveguide (e.g. 240)) into a single piece (e.g. a photonic integrated circuit (PIC)) is an obvious engineering choice and is not patentable. See MPEP 2144.04 section B. Making Integral.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DIBSON J SANCHEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0868. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 10:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached on 5712723078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DIBSON J SANCHEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634