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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 13, 14, 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU (US 2015/0196057) in view of THAMMOSOUK et al. (US 2012/0052929) and DEROCHER (US 2002/0145594).
With respect to claim 1, WU discloses an electronic atomization device (Abstract). The device comprising a main body having a main body housing, 21, and a capacitive touch screen (e.g., capacitive touch area), 251, for detecting touch that forms part of the main housing (Figures 3 and 4; Paragraph [0041]). WU does not disclose the specifics of the capacitive structure.
THAMMOSOUK et al. discloses a capacitive touch area, 104 (Paragraph [0015]) on a device housing (Abstract; Paragraph [0015]) so that the user can interact with the device. The touch area includes a capacitive layer, 130, having capacitive cells, 131-136, for detecting touch (Paragraph [0024]); an LED, 141-145, (Paragraph [0024]; Figure 1) and a light guide layer stacked with other layers in a lamination direction (extending orthogonally from the touch area (Figure 3A) and being connected to the LED such that light emitted from the LED propagates through the guide and through the touch area such that the user can see the lights (Paragraphs [0018]-[0024] and [0030]-[0032]; Figures 3A and 3B). Such a structure allows the controller to control the responses to touches being sensed by the touch sensors (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a capacitive layered structure for the capacitive touch layer of WU, as taught by THAMMOSOUK et al. so that the controller can provide the appropriate response to sensed touch.
THAMMOSOUK et al. does not explicitly disclose that the capacitive layer is translucent. DEROCHER discloses that the substrate on which the capacitive surfaces are placed is translucent, thereby permitting some distortion of light passing through (Paragraphs [0022], [0023]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the capacitive layer of modified WU as a translucent layer, as taught by DEROCHER so as to allow some distortion of light passing through.
With respect to claim 4¸ THAMMOSOUK et al. notes that only emitted light is visible through the area (Paragraphs [0031]-[0033]). Thus, in the event that light is not emitted , then the LED is not visible through the gap in the area.
With respect to claim 5, THAMMOSOUK et al. discloses that the LED is configured to emit light in response to a touch input by a user in the touch area (Paragraph[0032]).
With respect to claim 7, THAMMOSOUK et al. shows that the side surfaces of the light guide, 306, are perpendicular to the capacitive layer (PCB) (Figure 3A).
With respect to claim 8, THAMMOSOUK et al. discloses that the light guide is arranged in the area that extends orthogonally from the touch area (Figures 1-3B) and the sensors are masked with an opaque material (Paragraphs [0042]-[0044]). Moreover, the light guide is arranged optionally form the sensors (e.g., capacitive layer) (Figure 3a).
With respect to claim 9, THAMMOSOUK et al. shows that the light guide is parallel to the capacitive layer (Figure 3A and 3B).
With respect to claim 11, THAMMOSOUK et al. discloses that the capacitive layer includes etched (e.g., engraved) portions (Paragraph [0027]).
With respect to claim 13, WU discloses the generating device having the capacitive touch sensor (Abstract; Paragraph [0041]). The touch area comprises a clear (e.g., transparent) plastic film (THAMMOSOUK et al.; Paragraph [0030]) and a mask opaque portion is printed in the touch area (Paragraph [0042]-[0044]). Printing can be performed by silk-screening (Paragraph [0027]).
With respect to claim 14, THAMMOSOUK et al. discloses that the light guide is made from plastic (Paragraph [0018]). All material necessarily have a flexural modulus, and thus the light guide is necessarily deformable to some degree.
With respect to claim 16¸ THAMMOSOUK et al. discloses that the touch pads (e.g., capacitive cells are transparent to light (Paragraphs [0033], [0035]).
With respect to claim 19¸ THAMMOSOUK et al. discloses that the light guide is made from plastic (Paragraph [0018]). All solid materials necessarily have an elastic moduli, and thus the light guide is necessarily elastically deformable to some degree.
____________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 2, 3, 12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU (US 2015/0196057) in view of THAMMOSOUK et al. (US 2012/0052929) and DEROCHER (US 2002/0145594) as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 13, 14, 16 and 19 above, and further in view of SUNDBERG et al. (US 2020/0029619).
With respect to claims 2 and 12, modified WU does not explicitly disclose that the light guide is tubular shape. SUNDBERG et al. discloses an electronic vaping device (Abstract). The LEDs (Paragraph [0101]) are connected to respective light tubes (Paragraphs [0108]; Figure 1B) so that light can be channeled from the LEDs to the external surface of the device (Paragraphs [0139]-[0141]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the light guide in the form of light tubes for each respective LED in modified WU, as taught by SUNDBERG et al. so that the light from each respective LED can be channeled to the exterior of the device independently.
As seen in figures 1A-1D of SUNDBERG et al. the light tube extends in a longitudinal direction from the LED. Moreover, the LEDs of WU are on the translucent capacitive layer (See rejection of claim 1).
With respect to claims 3 and 17, SUNDBERG et al. shows that the light tubes 190-2 and 190-1 are smaller in diameter than their respective LED, 188-2 and 188-1). The courts have generally held that mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled. See, In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) . MPEP 2144.04, IV, A. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the cross-sectional area of the light tubes of modified WU with the same cross-sectional area (e.g., 100%) as the LED surfaces, so that all of the light is transmitted through the light tube.
_______________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 6, 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU (US 2015/0196057) in view of THAMMOSOUK et al. (US 2012/0052929) and DEROCHER (US 2002/0145594) as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 13, 14, 16 and 19 above, and further in view of NELSON (US 2023/0014618).
With respect to claim 6¸ modified WU does not explicitly disclose that the light guide includes one or more bent portions.
NELSON discloses an electronic aerosol system (Abstract) comprising a light pipe (Paragraph [0041]) that transfers light from an LED to outside the device. In the event that one or more of the user controls are located elsewhere on its surface, remote from the light, the light pipe may be curved or bent within the device (Paragraph [0045]; Figure 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a bent light tube in modified WU, as taught by NELSON so that the LED can be located remote from the output surface and still provide light to said surface.
With respect to claims 10 and 18, modified WU does not explicitly disclose that the light guide includes an angular portion that forms an angle with the capacitive layer between 10 and 80 degrees.
NELSON discloses an electronic aerosol system (Abstract) comprising a light pipe (Paragraph [0041]) that transfers light from an LED to outside the device. In the event that one or more of the user controls are located elsewhere on its surface, remote from the light, the light pipe may be curved or bent within the device (Paragraph [0045]; Figure 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a bent light tube in modified WU, as taught by NELSON so that the LED can be located remote from the output surface and still provide light to said surface.
Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) notes a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent". MPEP 2144.05, II, A. In the instant case, the bend (e.g. angle) is as a result of the placement of the touch area with respect to the capacitive layer. The bend in the pipe is designed to connect to these two structures. Thus, the angle in degrees, is simply a byproduct of the structure’s layout. Having an angle of between 10 and 80 degrees is within the optimum or workable ranges of angles to connect these structures, and would have been considered for such purposes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As seen in figure 1 of THAMMOSOUK et al., the LEDs are located on the capacitive layer. Thus, there would be no need for the light guide to extend through the capacitive layer. Moreover, there is not motivation to rearrange the LED such that the light guide would need to pass through the capacitive layer, per se.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX B EFTA whose telephone number is (313)446-6548. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Philip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
/ALEX B EFTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights