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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim of earliest priority from US provisional application number 63/227,405 filed on 07/30/2021.
Drawings
The 9-page drawings have been considered and placed on record in the file.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 12, 24 and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims recite the acronym “SCE” but does not include its definition. Examiner suggests amending the claims to recite “specular component exclude (SCE)”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “light emitting device” in claims 3, 7, 9 and 12; and “accommodation portion” in claim 24.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, these are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structures described in the applicant’s drawings: schematics depicted in Fig. 2, and applicant’s specification: ¶0029: “The light emitting device 130 includes at least one light emitting element 131 emitting infrared rays and a driving device 132. Examples of the light emitting element 131 include a light emitting diode and a semiconductor laser element”; and ¶0021: “The accommodation portion has a structural body such as, for example, a wall, a pillar, a floor, a ceiling or the like of a building” as performing the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-10, 13-19, 21-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma (US 2008/0030328 A1) in view of Krishnan et al. (US 2016/0238768 A1) and in further view of Long et al. (US 2022/0091316 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sharma teaches, An infrared security system, (Sharma, ¶0005: “a security system comprises an infrared (IR) sensor”) comprising: at least one detection unit (Sharma, ¶0006: “A reflected data packet is received with an IR receiver of the IR sensor”) including an (Sharma, ¶0031: “The IR receiver 155, however, is always active and is always receiving IR data and/or reflected data packets”) and a security system operative based on an output from the infrared detection device, (Sharma, ¶0030: “the first IR sensor 104 may be used to detect the presence of an object, such as a hand, in close proximity to the panel 148, and in response may turn on the backlight”). However, Sharma does not explicitly teach, wherein a value of L* at a surface of the optical stack measured by an SCE method is not smaller than 4, and wherein the infrared detection device is located on a side opposite to the surface of the optical stack such that a position of the infrared detection device is not specified.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Krishnan teaches, wherein a value of L* at a surface of the optical stack measured by an SCE method (Krishnan, ¶0050: “Color (L*,a*,b*) and surface reflectance measurements… were typically made in the Specular Component Excluded mode so as to characterize the “appearance” of the sample”) is not smaller than 4 (Krishnan, ¶0411: “the multilayer stack of item 348 or item 349… L(45) is at least 4”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sharma using the teachings of Krishnan to introduce computing an L* value of the surface of a multilayer stack using SCE. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of determining the perceived brightness of an inspected surface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Sharma and Krishnan to obtain the above-described limitations in claim 1. However, the combination of Sharma and Krishnan does not explicitly teach, wherein the infrared detection device is located on a side opposite to the surface of the optical stack such that a position of the infrared detection device is not specified.
In another analogous field of endeavor Long teaches, wherein the infrared detection device is located on a side opposite to the surface of the optical stack such that a position of the infrared detection device is not specified. (Long, ¶0043: “IR sensor 80 placed beneath the optical stack 100 may remain essentially hidden from view from an observer”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sharma in view of Krishnan using the teachings of Long to introduce placing an IR sensor under an optical stack. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of a hidden IR sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Sharma, Krishnan and Long to obtain the invention in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Sharma in view of Krishnan and in further view of Long teaches, The infrared security system of claim 1, wherein where a color of a surface of a periphery of an area where the at least one detection unit is located is referred to as a periphery color and a color of a surface of the at least one detection unit is referred to as a detector color, (Sharma, ¶0025: “The first IR sensor 104 may be installed on a wall proximate to the first door 112, such as at one of wall positions 168 and 169, to the top or side, respectively, of the first door 112”; IR sensor 104 has a detector color and the positions 168 and 169 has a periphery color) neither the periphery color nor the detector color is black, and a color difference between the periphery color and the detector color measured by the SCE method is not larger than 3. (Krishnan, ¶0023: “multilayer stacks that can be used as decorative… and can have a bright diffused appearance of any desired color, for example white, gold, silver, red, or other colors”; periphery and detector is interpreted to have the same desired color, therefore, SCE difference is 0).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sharma in view of Krishnan and in further view of Long using the additional teachings of Krishnan to introduce having a desired color. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of having an aesthetically pleasing appearance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Sharma, Krishnan and Long to obtain the invention in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Sharma in view of Krishnan and in further view of Long teaches, The infrared security system of claim 2, wherein the security system is configured to: generate time series data (Sharma, ¶0005: “The IR receiver has an active period for detecting IR data and reflected data packets”) representing a motion of at least one subject (Sharma, ¶0031: “data packets may be transmitted which may be used to detect proximity of an object (the first door 112) as well as detect the presence of a foreign reflective object”) based on a subject signal generated by the infrared detection device when the infrared detection device receives, (Sharma, ¶0023: “infrared signals may be reflected and received from a reflecting surface”) through the optical stack, infrared rays emitted from a light emitting device (Sharma, ¶0038: “IR transmitter 154 transmits a control data packet 206”) toward the at least one subject and reflected by the at least one subject, (Sharma, ¶0023: “infrared signals may be reflected and received from a reflecting surface”) and analyze the motion of the at least one subject (Sharma, ¶0031: “data packets may be transmitted which may be used to detect proximity of an object (the first door 112) as well as detect the presence of a foreign reflective object”) based on the time series data. (Sharma, ¶0003: “constantly transmit IR, then compare the received or reflected IR to the transmitted IR”).
Regarding claim 4, Sharma in view of Krishnan and in further view of Long teaches, The infrared security system of claim 1, wherein where a design of a surface of a periphery of an area where the at least one detection unit is located is referred to as a periphery design (Sharma, ¶0024: “FIG. 3 illustrates alternative positions for mounting or positioning the first IR sensor 104”) and a design of a surface of the at least one detection unit is referred to as a detector design, the detector design and the periphery design are the same as, or similar to, each other, (Sharma, ¶0024: “FIG. 3 illustrates alternative positions for mounting or positioning the first IR sensor 104”; periphery and detector color is interpreted to be the same color) and wherein the security system operates referring to a blank signal not including information on a subject, (Sharma, ¶0006: “The packet IR reflectivity is compared to the door IR reflectivity which is based on the surface associated with the door, and a status of the door is determined based on the comparison”) the blank signal being generated by the infrared detection device when the infrared detection device receives reference infrared rays through the optical stack. (Sharma, ¶0005: “The memory stores a door IR reflectivity associated with a door surface of the door”; IR reflectivity without a subject is interpreted as a blank signal).
Regarding claim 5, Sharma in view of Krishnan and in further view of Long teaches, The infrared security system of claim 4, wherein the security system acquires the blank signal (Sharma, ¶0005: “transmits control data packets which are provided by the processor during the active period… The memory stores a door IR reflectivity associated with a door surface of the door”; IR reflectivity without a subject is interpreted as a blank signal) every certain period of time. (Sharma, ¶0005: “the time durations of the active period and idle period are determined”).
Regarding claim 6, Sharma in view of Krishnan and in further view of Long teaches, The infrared security system of claim 4, wherein the periphery design and the detector design each include a pattern, (Sharma, ¶0032: “Each surface which reflects IR has a different level of reflectivity and creates a different reflectivity signature”) and wherein the infrared security system further includes a storage device storing the blank signal specific to the pattern. (Sharma, ¶0032: “store IR reflectivity data in the memory 162 that is associated with the desired reflective surface”).
Regarding claim 7, Sharma in view of Krishnan and in further view of Long teaches, The infrared security system of claim 4, wherein the security system is operative based on a difference between a subject signal, generated by the infrared detection device (Sharma, ¶0030: “the first IR sensor 104 may be used to detect the presence of an object, such as a hand, in close proximity to the panel 148, and in response may turn on the backlight”) when the infrared detection device receives, through the optical stack, infrared rays emitted (Sharma, ¶0038: “IR transmitter 154 transmits a control data packet 206”) from a light emitting device toward at least one subject (Sharma, ¶0031: “data packets may be transmitted which may be used to detect proximity of an object (the first door 112) as well as detect the presence of a foreign reflective object”) and reflected by the at least one subject, and the blank signal. (Sharma, ¶0006: “The packet IR reflectivity is compared to the door IR reflectivity which is based on the surface associated with the door, and a status of the door is determined based on the comparison”).
Regarding claim 8, Sharma in view of Krishnan and in further view of Long teaches, The infrared security system of claim 7, wherein the security system is configured to: generate time series data representing a motion of the at least one subject (Sharma, ¶0031: “data packets may be transmitted which may be used to detect proximity of an object (the first door 112) as well as detect the presence of a foreign reflective object”) based on the difference between the subject signal and the blank signal, (Sharma, ¶0006: “The packet IR reflectivity is compared to the door IR reflectivity”) and analyze the motion of the at least one subject based on the time series data. (Sharma, ¶0003: “constantly transmit IR, then compare the received or reflected IR to the transmitted IR”).
Regarding claim 9, Sharma in view of Krishnan and in further view of Long teaches, The infrared security system of claim 3, wherein the at least one detection unit includes the light emitting device (Sharma, ¶0023: “The first IR sensor 104 has an IR transmitter 154 and an IR receiver 155”) emitting infrared rays outside through the optical stack. (Sharma, ¶0038: “IR transmitter 154 transmits a control data packet 206”).
Regarding claim 10, Sharma in view of Krishnan and in further view of Long teaches, The infrared security system of claim 1, wherein the at least one detection unit includes a plurality of detection units. (Sharma, ¶0024: “The IR sensors which are installed in the multiple positions may have the same configuration, functionality and field of view”).
Regarding claim 13, Sharma in view of Krishnan and in further view of Long teaches, The infrared security system of claim 1, wherein the infrared detection device is configured to capture an image of a subject with infrared rays in each of two or more different wavelength ranges (Long, ¶0022: “first wavelength range may extend from about 420 nm to about 650 nm. In some embodiments, the second wavelength range may extend from about 800 nm to about 1550 nm”) included in infrared rays reflected by the subject and to generate image information representing each of the images. (Long, ¶0032: “form a first image in the first wavelength range for viewing by a viewer, and a second image in the second wavelength range”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sharma in view of Krishnan and in further view of Long using the additional teachings of Long to introduce imaging in two different wavelengths. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of improving the detection ability of the infrared detection device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Sharma, Krishnan and Long to obtain the invention in claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Sharma in view of Krishnan and in further view of Long teaches, The infrared security system of claim 1, wherein the optical stack has a regular transmittance not higher than 20% for light in a wavelength range of visible light and a total transmittance not higher than 40% for the light in the wavelength range of visible light. (Long, ¶0004: “an optical stack is provided, including an optical diffuser having an average total transmission, T1, and an average diffuse transmission, T2”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sharma in view of Krishnan and in further view of Long using the additional teachings of Long to introduce different levels of light transmittance. Although Long does not specify a regular transmittance less than 20% and total transmittance less than 40%, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Therefore, a person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of achieving a desired light transmittance for an optical stack. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Sharma, Krishnan and Long to obtain the invention in claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, Sharma in view of Krishnan and in further view of Long teaches, The infrared security system of claim 14, wherein the optical stack includes a visible light scattering layer (Long, ¶0001: “second scattering rate R2 for at least one wavelength in the second wavelength range”) having a regular transmittance not lower than 60% (Long, ¶0002: “transmits at least 70% of light for each wavelength in the second wavelength range”) for light having a wavelength in at least a part of the wavelength range not shorter than 760 nm and not longer than 2000 nm. (Long, ¶0001: “the second wavelength range extending at least from about 800 nm to about 1200 nm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sharma in view of Krishnan and in further view of Long using the additional teachings of Long to introduce adjusting the transmittance of an optical stack for lights of a certain wavelength. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of optimizing an optical stack for desired light transmittance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Sharma, Krishnan and Long to obtain the invention in claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Sharma in view of Krishnan and in further view of Long teaches, The infrared security system of claim 15, wherein the optical stack has a regular transmittance not lower than 40% (Long, ¶0002: “transmits at least 70% of light for each wavelength in the second wavelength range”) for light in the wavelength range not shorter than 760 nm and not longer than 2000 nm. (Long, ¶0001: “the second wavelength range extending at least from about 800 nm to about 1200 nm”). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Sharma, Krishnan and Long references presented in the rejection of claim 15, apply to claim 16 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the system recited in claim 16 is met by Sharma, Krishnan and Long.
Regarding claim 17, Sharma in view of Krishnan and in further view of Long teaches, The infrared security system of claim 16, wherein the optical stack has a diffuse transmittance lower than 30% for light in the entirety of the wavelength range not shorter than 760 nm and not longer than 2000 nm. (Long, ¶0034: “an average diffuse transmission, T2… the second wavelength range may extend from about 800 nm to about 1200 nm”). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Sharma, Krishnan and Long references presented in the rejection of claim 14, apply to claim 17 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the system recited in claim 17 is met by Sharma, Krishnan and Long.
Regarding claim 18, Sharma in view of Krishnan and in further view of Long teaches, The infrared security system of claim 14, wherein the optical stack includes a visible light scattering layer containing fine particles acting as light scattering elements dispersed in a matrix. (Krishnan, ¶0048: “decorative microsphere article similar to that shown in FIG. 1 (light scattering layer 110 comprising borosilicate glass beads 114 in a polyurethane matrix 112”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sharma in view of Krishnan and in further view of Long using the additional teachings of Krishnan to introduce a light scattering layer. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of enhancing the detection of signals by homogenizing the light by the scattering layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Sharma, Krishnan and Long to obtain the invention in claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, Sharma in view of Krishnan and in further view of Long teaches, The infrared security system of claim 18, wherein the fine particles form at least a colloidal amorphous array. (Krishnan, ¶0048: “decorative microsphere article similar to that shown in FIG. 1 (light scattering layer 110 comprising borosilicate glass beads 114 in a polyurethane matrix 112”; also see Fig.1 - Fig.4). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Sharma, Krishnan and Long references presented in the rejection of claim 18, apply to claim 19 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the system recited in claim 19 is met by Sharma, Krishnan and Long.
Regarding claim 21, Sharma in view of Krishnan and in further view of Long teaches, The infrared security system of claim 18, wherein the optical stack includes a surface protective layer at the surface thereof. (Krishnan, ¶0055: “The bead surfaces can have excellent smooth tactile feel and abrasion resistance, due to the presence of a monolayer of microspheres on the surface, making them valuable as surface protection films”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sharma in view of Krishnan and in further view of Long using the additional teachings of Krishnan to introduce a protection layer. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of enhancing the protection of the surface layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Sharma, Krishnan and Long to obtain the invention in claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, Sharma in view of Krishnan and in further view of Long teaches, The infrared security system of claim 18, wherein the optical stack includes a design layer. (Krishnan, ¶0023: “multilayer stacks that can be used as decorative microsphere articles. The decorative microsphere articles can be a durable and aesthetically pleasing substitute for anodized aluminum”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sharma in view of Krishnan and in further view of Long using the additional teachings of Krishnan to introduce a design layer. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of enhancing the aesthetic appearance of the optical stack. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Sharma, Krishnan and Long to obtain the invention in claim 22.
Regarding claim 23, Sharma in view of Krishnan and in further view of Long teaches, The infrared security system of claim 18, wherein the optical stack includes a substrate layer. (Long, ¶0049: “The substrate layer 18 may be any appropriate polymeric substrate, such as, for example, polyethylene terephthalate”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sharma in view of Krishnan and in further view of Long using the additional teachings of Long to introduce a supporting substrate layer. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of enhancing the mechanical strength of the detector. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Sharma, Krishnan and Long to obtain the invention in claim 23.
Regarding claim 24, Sharma teaches, A design unit, comprising: one or a plurality of detection units (Sharma, ¶0024: “The IR sensors which are installed in the multiple positions may have the same configuration, functionality and field of view”) each including an (Sharma, ¶0031: “The IR receiver 155, however, is always active and is always receiving IR data and/or reflected data packets”) and an accommodation portion accommodating the one or the plurality of detection units, (Sharma, ¶0025: “The first IR sensor 104 may be installed on a wall proximate to the first door 112, such as at one of wall positions 168 and 169”) wherein an outer surface of the accommodation portion includes a surface of the (Sharma, ¶0025: “The first IR sensor 104 may be installed on a wall”; also see Fig. 2). However, Sharma does not explicitly teach, wherein a value of L* at the surface of the optical stack measured by an SCE method is not smaller than 4, and wherein the infrared detection device is located on a side opposite to the surface of the optical stack such that a position of the infrared detection device is not specified.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Krishnan teaches, wherein a value of L* at the surface of the optical stack measured by an SCE method (Krishnan, ¶0050: “Color (L*,a*,b*) and surface reflectance measurements… were typically made in the Specular Component Excluded mode so as to characterize the “appearance” of the sample”) is not smaller than 4, (Krishnan, ¶0411: “the multilayer stack of item 348 or item 349… L(45) is at least 4”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sharma using the teachings of Krishnan to introduce computing an L* value of the surface of a multilayer stack using SCE. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of determining the perceived brightness of an inspected surface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Sharma and Krishnan to obtain the above-described limitations in claim 24. However, the combination of Sharma and Krishnan does not explicitly teach, wherein the infrared detection device is located on a side opposite to the surface of the optical stack such that a position of the infrared detection device is not specified.
In another analogous field of endeavor Long teaches, wherein the infrared detection device is located on a side opposite to the surface of the optical stack such that a position of the infrared detection device is not specified. (Long, ¶0043: “IR sensor 80 placed beneath the optical stack 100 may remain essentially hidden from view from an observer”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sharma in view of Krishnan using the teachings of Long to introduce placing an IR sensor under an optical stack. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of a hidden IR sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Sharma, Krishnan and Long to obtain the invention in claim 24.
Regarding claim 25, Sharma in view of Krishnan and in further view of Long teaches, The design unit of claim 24, wherein where a color of the outer surface is referred to as a periphery color and a color of the surface of the optical stack is referred to as a detector color, (Sharma, ¶0025: “The first IR sensor 104 may be installed on a wall proximate to the first door 112, such as at one of wall positions 168 and 169, to the top or side, respectively, of the first door 112”; IR sensor 104 has a detector color and the positions 168 and 169 has a periphery color) neither the periphery color nor the detector color is black, and a color difference between the periphery color and the detector color measured by the SCE method is not larger than 3. (Krishnan, ¶0023: “multilayer stacks that can be used as decorative… and can have a bright diffused appearance of any desired color, for example white, gold, silver, red, or other colors”; periphery and detector is interpreted to have the same desired color, therefore, SCE difference is 0).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sharma in view of Krishnan and in further view of Long using the additional teachings of Krishnan to introduce having a desired color. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of having an aesthetically pleasing appearance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Sharma, Krishnan and Long to obtain the invention in claim 25.
Regarding claim 26, Sharma in view of Krishnan and in further view of Long teaches, The design unit of claim 24, wherein the outer surface and the surface of the optical stack are provided with a single pattern, (Sharma, ¶0025: “The first IR sensor 104 may be installed on a wall”; the single pattern is interpreted as a wall surface pattern and the detector surface pattern) and wherein the optical stack included in each of the one or the plurality of detection units is located at an arbitrary position in the single pattern, and the one or the plurality of detection units are each hidden on a rear side of the optical stack. (Long, ¶0043: “IR sensor 80 placed beneath the optical stack 100 may remain essentially hidden from view from an observer”). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Sharma, Krishnan and Long references presented in the rejection of claim 24, apply to claim 26 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the design unit recited in claim 26 is met by Sharma, Krishnan and Long.
Regarding claim 28, Sharma in view of Krishnan and in further view of Long teaches, An infrared security system, comprising: the design unit of claim 24; and a security system operative based on an output from an infrared detection device, (Sharma, ¶0030: “the first IR sensor 104 may be used to detect the presence of an object, such as a hand, in close proximity to the panel 148, and in response may turn on the backlight”) wherein the infrared detection device is not visually recognizable from outside. (Long, ¶0043: “IR sensor 80 placed beneath the optical stack 100 may remain essentially hidden from view from an observer”). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Sharma, Krishnan and Long references presented in the rejection of claim 24, apply to claim 28 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the design unit recited in claim 28 is met by Sharma, Krishnan and Long.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma (US 2008/0030328 A1) in view of Long et al. (US 2022/0091316 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Sharma teaches, An infrared security system, (Sharma, ¶0005: “a security system comprises an infrared (IR) sensor”) comprising: at least one detection unit (Sharma, ¶0006: “A reflected data packet is received with an IR receiver of the IR sensor”) including an (Sharma, ¶0031: “The IR receiver 155, however, is always active and is always receiving IR data and/or reflected data packets”) and a security system operative based on an output from the infrared detection device, (Sharma, ¶0030: “the first IR sensor 104 may be used to detect the presence of an object, such as a hand, in close proximity to the panel 148, and in response may turn on the backlight”) wherein where a design of a surface of a periphery of an area where the at least one detection unit is located is referred to as a periphery design (Sharma, ¶0024: “FIG. 3 illustrates alternative positions for mounting or positioning the first IR sensor 104”) and a design of a surface of the optical stack is referred to as a detector design, the detector design and the periphery design are similar to each other, (Sharma, ¶0024: “FIG. 3 illustrates alternative positions for mounting or positioning the first IR sensor 104”; periphery and detector color is interpreted to be the same color) and wherein the security system operates referring to a blank signal not including information on a subject, (Sharma, ¶0006: “The packet IR reflectivity is compared to the door IR reflectivity which is based on the surface associated with the door, and a status of the door is determined based on the comparison”) the blank signal being generated by the infrared detection device when the infrared detection device receives reference infrared rays through the (Sharma, ¶0005: “The memory stores a door IR reflectivity associated with a door surface of the door”; IR reflectivity without a subject is interpreted as a blank signal). However, Sharma does not explicitly teach, an infrared device placed under an optical stack.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Long teaches, an infrared device placed under an optical stack (Long, ¶0043: “IR sensor 80 placed beneath the optical stack 100 may remain essentially hidden from view from an observer”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sharma using the teachings of Long to introduce placing an IR sensor under an optical stack. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of a hidden IR sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Sharma and Long to obtain the invention in claim 11.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma (US 2008/0030328 A1) in view of Krishnan et al. (US 2016/0238768 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Sharma teaches, An infrared light emission control system, comprising: a light source unit (Sharma, ¶0006: “a security system comprises transmitting a control data packet with an IR transmitter of an IR sensor”) including an (Sharma, ¶0038: “IR transmitter 154 transmits a control data packet 206”) and a light emission control system controlling an operation of the light emitting device, (Sharma, ¶0029: “The processor 152 may control the IR transmitter 154 within the first IR sensor”) wherein where a color of a surface of a periphery of an area where the light source unit is located is referred to as a periphery color and a color of a surface of the light source unit is referred to as a detector color, (Sharma, ¶0025: “The first IR sensor 104 may be installed on a wall proximate to the first door 112, such as at one of wall positions 168 and 169, to the top or side, respectively, of the first door 112”; IR sensor 104 has a detector color and the positions 168 and 169 has a periphery color). However, Sharma does not explicitly teach, neither the periphery color nor the detector color is black, and a color difference between the periphery color and the detector color measured by an SCE method is not larger than 3.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Krishnan teaches, neither the periphery color nor the detector color is black, and a color difference between the periphery color and the detector color measured by an SCE method is not larger than 3. (Krishnan, ¶0023: “multilayer stacks that can be used as decorative… and can have a bright diffused appearance of any desired color, for example white, gold, silver, red, or other colors”; periphery and detector is interpreted to have the same desired color, therefore, SCE difference is 0).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sharma using the teachings of Krishnan to introduce having a desired color. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of having an aesthetically pleasing appearance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Sharma and Krishnan to obtain the invention in claim 12.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma (US 2008/0030328 A1) in view of Krishnan et al. (US 2016/0238768 A1) and in further view of Long et al. (US 2022/0091316 A1) and still in further view of Kajiya et al. (US 2021/0382214 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Sharma in view of Krishnan and in further view of Long teaches, The infrared security system of claim 18. However, the combination of does not explicitly teach, wherein a transmittance curve of the visible light scattering layer for light in the wavelength range of visible light includes a curved portion in which the regular transmittance monotonously decreases from a longer wavelength side to a shorter wavelength side, and the curved portion is shifted to the longer wavelength side as an angle of incidence is increased.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Kajiya teaches, wherein a transmittance curve of the visible light scattering layer for light in the wavelength range of visible light includes a curved portion in which the regular transmittance monotonously decreases from a longer wavelength side to a shorter wavelength side, (Kajiya, Fig. 5F: transmittance decreases from longer wavelength to shorter wavelength) and the curved portion is shifted to the longer wavelength side as an angle of incidence is increased. (Kajiya, ¶0016: “a transmittance (%) at an incidence angle of 60° is lower than a transmittance (%) at an incidence angle of 0° by 15%”; also see Fig. 5F).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sharma in view of Krishnan and in further view of Long using the teachings of Kajiya to introduce a transmittance to wavelength curve based on incident angle. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of establishing a known correlation between transmittance, wavelength and incident angle to design an optimized optical stack. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Sharma, Krishnan, Long and Kajiya to obtain the invention in claim 20.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma (US 2008/0030328 A1) in view of Krishnan et al. (US 2016/0238768 A1) and in further view of Long et al. (US 2022/0091316 A1) and still in further view of Watabe et al. (US 2015/0369668 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Sharma in view of Krishnan and in further view of Long teaches, The design unit of claim 24. However, the combination of Sharma, Krishnan and Long does not explicitly teach, wherein the outer surface and the surface of the optical stack are provided with a design including a plurality of zones separated from each other by a visually recognizable border, wherein the optical stack included in each of the one or the plurality of detection units is located in a different zone among the plurality of zones, and the one or the plurality of detection units are each hidden on a rear side of the optical stack, and wherein the plurality of zones each have an arbitrary color or pattern.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Watabe teaches, wherein the outer surface and the surface of the optical stack are provided with a design including a plurality of zones separated from each other by a visually recognizable border, (Watabe, Fig. 35: visually recognizable circular zone border and square window zone border) wherein the optical stack included in each of the one or the plurality of detection units is located in a different zone among the plurality of zones, (Watabe, Fig. 34: detection element 20h is located under the square window zone) and the one or the plurality of detection units are each hidden on a rear side of the optical stack, (Watabe, Fig. 34: detection element 20h is hidden in the optical filter 30) and wherein the plurality of zones each have an arbitrary color or pattern. (Watabe, Fig 34: transparent window zone 29w and light blocking barrier zone 29ba).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sharma in view of Krishnan and in further view of Long using the teachings of Watabe to introduce a different surface zones. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of allowing the detector to receive light through the transparent window zone and providing mechanical strength through the package barrier zone. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Sharma, Krishnan, Long and Watabe to obtain the invention in claim 27.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHRAZUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8am-5pm.
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, Saini Amandeep can be reached on (571) 272-3382. 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.
/MEHRAZUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662