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 § 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(s) 1, 7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Reeder et al. (US 20200087905).
Regarding claim 1, Reeder teaches an electronic device, comprising: a infrared sensor for detecting a change of infrared energy within an activation distance from the electronic device, the activation distance comprising a distance where a user's hand is detected as it approaches the electronic device (para 124); a processor coupled to the infrared sensor, for receiving an electronic signal from the infrared sensor indicative of the change of infrared energy, for determining that the electronic signal comprises an indication of imminent use of the electronic device, and for activating an illumination device in response thereto (para 124); and the illumination device, coupled to the processor, for illuminating the electronic device when the processor has determined imminent use of the electronic device (para 007) (see International Search Report and Written Option of PCT/US23/82680, dated March 6,, 2024).
Regarding claim 7, Reeder teaches a housing that encloses the infrared sensor and the processor, the housing comprising a housing opening in substantial alignment with the infrared sensor for allowing ambient light to fall onto the infrared sensor (figure 6).
Regarding claim 13, Reeder teaches the infrared sensor comprises one or more passive infrared sensing elements and active electrical components, the active electrical components for processing signals produced by a first one of the passive infrared sensing elements, for determining when infrared energy sensed by the first passive infrared sensing element indicates imminent use of the electronic device, for generating an interrupt signal when imminent use of the electronic device is determined, and for providing the interrupt to the processor that indicates imminent use of the electronic device (para 120).
Claim(s) 1 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Shao et al. (WO 2020/155055).
Regarding claim 1, Shao teaches an electronic device (para 272), comprising: a infrared sensor for detecting a change of infrared energy within an activation distance from the electronic device, the activation distance comprising a distance where a user's hand is detected as it approaches the electronic device (para 66); a processor 520 coupled to the infrared sensor, for receiving an electronic signal from the infrared sensor indicative of the change of infrared energy, for determining that the electronic signal comprises an indication of imminent use of the electronic device, and for activating an illumination device in response thereto (para 29, 66, 69, 114 and 307); and the illumination device, coupled to the processor, for illuminating the electronic device when the processor has determined imminent use of the electronic device (para 69, 298, 307, 308) (see International Search Report and Written Option of PCT/US23/82680, dated March 6,, 2024).
Regarding claim 12, Shao teaches electronic circuitry coupled to the processor to internally filter and amplify an internal electrical signal generated by the passive infrared sensor in response to the increase in infrared energy. wherein the infrared sensor comprises a passive, pyroelectric sensor (para 66, 104, 107 and 111).
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, 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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reeder.
Regarding claim 2, Reeder fails to teach the activation distance is less than 18 inches.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify Reeder with the activation distance is less than 18 inches, the motivation being to provide an optimal distance to detect motion (para 7).
Regarding claim 8, Reeder teaches the infrared sensor comprises a sensing element but fails to teach the housing opening is smaller than an area of the sensing element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify Reeder with the housing opening is smaller than an area of the sensing element, the motivation being to provide proper orientation for the sensing element (para 121).
Regarding claim 9, Reeder teaches the infrared sensor comprises two or more sensing elements, wherein the housing aperture is positioned over a first of the two or more sensing element only (para 126).
Regarding claim 10, Reeder teaches the two or more sensing elements are substantially flush against an inner surface of the housing (figure 6).
Regarding claim 11, Reeder teaches a lens deposited into the housing opening comprising a material with a high infrared transmissibility rating and a low visible light transmissibility rating (figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify Reeder with the lens’ material with a high infrared transmissibility rating and a low visible light transmissibility rating the motivation being to provide the range of the motion sensor (para 124).
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reeder in view of Fadell et al. (US 20150005953).
Regarding claim 3, Reeder teaches a mask mounted over the infrared sensor but fails to teach the mask comprising a mask opening for limiting an amount of ambient light that reaches the infrared sensor.
Fadell teaches a mask opening for limiting an amount of ambient light that reaches the infrared sensor (para 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before ethe priority date to modify Reeder with the size of the mask opening for limiting an amount of ambident light that reaches the infrared sensor as taught by Fadell, the motivation being to effectively detect the lateral movement of the occupant (para 9).
Regarding claim 4, Fadell teaches a size of the mask opening is proportional to the activation distance (para 122).
Regarding claim 5, Fadell teaches an area of the mask opening and an area of a sensing element of the infrared sensor defines the activation distance (para 122).
Regarding claim 6, Reeder as modified by Fadell fails to teach the infrared sensor comprises two or more sensing elements, wherein the mask completely covers all but a first sensing element of the two or more sensing elements and partially covers the first sensing element via the mask opening.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before ethe priority date to modify Reeder with cover all but a first sensing element of the two or more sensing elements and partially cover the first sensing element via the mask opening, motivation being to provide proper orientation for the sensing element (para 121).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reeder in view of Gagnon et al. (US 20200111335).
Regarding claim 12, Reeder fails to teach electronic circuitry coupled to the processor to internally filter and amplify an internal electrical signal generated by the passive infrared sensor in response to the increase in infrared energy. wherein the infrared sensor comprises a passive, pyroelectric sensor.
Gagnon teaches internally filter and amplify (para 5 and 74).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before ethe priority date to modify Reeder with the internally filter and amplify as taught by Gagnon, the motivation being to improved the signal processing).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fadell et al. (US 20150005953) in view of Reeder et al. (US 20200087905).
Regarding claim 14, Fadell teaches a method for determining imminent use of an electronic device using a digital infrared sensor, comprising: limiting an amount of ambient light that falls on the infrared sensor with a mask, the mask comprising a mask opening that allows some ambient light to fall on a first sensing element of the infrared sensor, the mask opening sized to define an activation distance in front of the electronic device that, when breached by a human hand, causes an electronic signal to be generated by the infrared sensor; receiving the electronic signal by the processor (para 119, 11, 09, figure 18a) (see International Search Report and Written Option of PCT/US23/82680, dated March 6,, 2024).
However Fadell fails to teach causing one or more illumination devices to illuminate the electronic device.
Reeder teaches causing one or more illumination devices to illuminate the electronic device (para 7, 143-145).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before ethe priority date to modify Fadell with the illumination devices to illuminate the electronic device as taught by Reeder, the motivation being to illuminate the thermostat for ease of use (para 145).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reeder et al. (US 20200087905) in view of Fadell et al. (US 20150005953) and Gagnon et al. (US 20200111335).
Regarding claim 15, Reeder teaches a method for determining imminent use of an electronic device using a passive pyroelectric sensor, comprising: limiting an amount of ambient light that falls on the passive pyroelectric sensor with a mask; and in response to determining that the human hand has breached the activation distance, causing one or more illumination devices located on or within the electronic device to illuminate the electronic device.
However Reeder fails to teach the mask comprising a mask opening that allows some ambient light to fall on the passive pyroelectric sensor, the mask opening sized to define an activation distance in front of the electronic device that, when breached by a human hand, causes the electronic device to become illuminated; generating an electric signal by the passive pyroelectric sensor in response to detecting a change in infrared energy; amplifying the electric signal to form an amplified signal; filtering the amplified electric signal to create a filtered signal; comparing the filtered signal to a threshold; determining that a human hand has breached the activation distance when the filtered signal exceeds the threshold.
Fadell teaches the mask comprising a mask opening that allows some ambient light to fall on the passive pyroelectric sensor, the mask opening sized to define an activation distance in front of the electronic device that, when breached by a human hand, causes the electronic device to become illuminated; generating an electric signal by the passive pyroelectric sensor in response to detecting a change in infrared energy; determining that a human hand has breached the activation distance when the filtered signal exceeds the threshold (para 9, 97, 122, figure 18a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before ethe priority date to modify Reeder with the mask opening as taught by Fadell, the motivation being to effectively detect the lateral movement of the opening (para 9) (see International Search Report and Written Option of PCT/US23/82680, dated March 6,, 2024).
Further Reeder fails to teach amplifying the electric signal to form an amplified signal; filtering the amplified electric signal to create a filtered signal; comparing the filtered signal to a threshold;
Gagnon teaches internally filter and amplify (para 5 and 74).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before ethe priority date to modify Reeder with the internally filter and amplify as taught by Gagnon, the motivation being to improved the signal processing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOON K SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2494. The examiner can normally be reached M to Th 10am to 7pm.
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 Makiya can be reached on 571-272-2273. 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.
/HOON K SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884