DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/01/2025 has been entered and considered by Examiner. Claims 1-14, and 21 - 25 are presented for examination. Claims 1-14 are withdrawn. This Action is made FINAL.
Specification
The title of the invention is objected for not being descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shoemake et al. (US Pub. 20200012174 A1).
For claim 21, Shoemake discloses a smartphone comprising:
a light source positioned along a side edge of the smartphone and configured to project light forward when the smartphone is held in a natural hand position (Para. (0154), the light covers 20 are preferably disposed along the length of the side surfaces 90 but may fully encircle the case 55; Para. [0153], each of the light covers 20 are designed to permit light to be emitted outwards from the illumination device 1 along at least a 180° arc. This is due to the fact the light covers 20 are generally shaped to cover the area above the light source 10 and on each side of the light source 10 to the point at which the light source 10 terminate at the device; hence, the light from the light source 10 may be projected perpendicular to the side surface 90; Figs. 9-12).
.
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.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoemake et al. (US Pub. 20200012174 A1) in view of Pujol (US Pub. 20110164416 A1).
For claim 22, Shoemake discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
But Shoemake doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Pujol.
Pujol discloses an optical component associated with the light source configured to enhance beam projection [0022].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing various sensors used in an optical device; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Shoemake with Pujol to enhance light projection using physical optic elements.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoemake et al. (US Pub. 20200012174 A1) in view of Martin (US Pub. 20030048599 A1).
For claim 23, Shoemake discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
But Shoemake doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Martin.
Martin discloses the light source is controllable by a button on the side edge of the smartphone [0017] (Page 4, Claim 20),
Since, all are analogous arts addressing various sensors used in a mobile device; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Shoemake with Martin to enhance user friendliness of the physical configuration of essential functions.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoemake et al. (US Pub. 20200012174 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US Pub. 20180293420 A1).
For claim 24, Shoemake discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
But Shoemake doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Kim.
Kim discloses a biometric sensor positioned on an external surface of the smartphone [0008, 0059, 0109].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing various sensors used in a mobile device; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Shoemake with Kim to enhance user friendliness of the physical configuration of essential functions.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoemake et al. (US Pub. 20200012174 A1) in view of Vidal et al. (US Pub. 20150085184 A1).
For claim 25, Shoemake discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
But Shoemake doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Vidal.
Vidal discloses a camera positioned on the side edge of the smartphone [0034-35].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing various sensors used in a mobile device; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Shoemake with Vidal to enhance user friendliness of the physical configuration of essential functions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to all the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
In view of amendment, new references has been used for new ground of rejections.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PAKEE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3633. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Armouche, Hadi can be reached on 571-270-3618. 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.
/PAKEE FANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights