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 . Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 for Korean Application 10-2022-0089950.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 7/15/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Korean Application 10-2022-0087840 as required by 37 CFR 1.55. The USPTO was informed on 12/15/2023 that an attempt to electronically retrieve the certified copy failed.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-5, 7-9, 11-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200052466 (hereinafter Chen) in view of US20240241507 (hereinafter Witherspoon).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen teaches an electronic device (tablet, [0004]), the electronic device comprising:
at least one processor (control circuit, [0011] & [0013]);
a distance detection sensor (photodetector 861 / VCSEL 800);
a display (tablet [0004], tablets are known to have displays); and
a memory (control circuit described in [0011] and [0013] would have memory storing instructions to operate as described, e.g. [0017] describes recording changes in the signals from the distance detector) configured to store instructions,
wherein the at least one processor, when the instructions are executed, is configured to:
receive, through the distance detection sensor, second signals (865) from which a first signal transmitted through the distance detection sensor is reflected;
identify whether a crosstalk (865) by a window (optical component 852) of a housing of the electronic device is detected based on intensity values ([0055] & claim 1, discusses how changes in photodetector signal (i.e. intensity) reflected off 862 can be determined to increase or decrease by a threshold value) of the second signals measured in distance areas of the distance detection sensor;
provide a first notification indicating that the housing has been normally assembled based on identifying that the crosstalk by the window is detected (control circuit receives sensor readings indicating the photodetector signal is within an expected range of values and maintains VCSEL operation [0055] – [0056] but fails to explicitly describe providing a notification); and
provide a second notification indicating that the housing is not normally assembled based on identifying that the crosstalk by the window is not detected ([0055] – [0056], FIGS. 8A-8B describe how the control circuit receives sensor readings indicating the photodetector signal is outside an expected range of values and halts VCSEL operation due to 852 being damaged, dislodged or laterally displaced from its intended location but fails to explicitly describe providing a notification).
However, Witherspoon teaches a notification system that provides notifications in response to a number of different exemplary events including at [0009] mechanical breakdown. Witherspoon at [0017] also teaches sending a notification whether or not a device event has occurred within a set time frame.
Chen and Witherspoon both teach monitoring systems for identifying device operation problems. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have considered it obvious to add notifications indicating after, e.g., a detectable event potentially resulting in damage to a device, such as a shock described in [0007] of Chen, indicating whether or not changes in an amount of light being reflected off the device housing cover (i.e., crosstalk) is being detected at a level different enough from its expected level to indicate a problem with the device hardware / housing (see FIG. 8A – 8B of Chen showing a clear problem with the device housing assembly).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Chen and Witherspoon teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor, to identify whether the crosstalk by the window is detected, is configured to:
identify whether each of the second signals is less than a threshold (the second signals should be below an upper threshold value to indicate normal operation, see claim 2 of Chen), and
identify that the crosstalk by the window is detected based on each of intensity values of the second signals being less than the threshold (when the second signals are below the upper threshold value the sensor is determined to not be dislodged or damaged, see claim 2).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Chen and Witherspoon teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the distance detection sensor comprises
a light emitting unit comprising light emitting circuitry (VCSEL 800) configured to emit the first signal, and
wherein the distance detection sensor comprises a light receiving unit including light receiving circuitry (photodetector 861) configured to receive reflected light from the distance areas.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Chen and Witherspoon teaches the electronic device of claim 3, wherein the distance areas include a first distance area (interior facing surface of optical component 852) and a second distance area (locations exterior to the perimeter of the housing [0054]),
wherein a distance between the first distance area and the light emitting unit is less than a distance between the second distance area and the light emitting unit,
wherein, based on the crosstalk (865) by the window (852) being detected, an intensity of a reflection signal measured in the first distance area is greater than an intensity of a reflection signal measured in the second distance area ([0054] of Chen describes how the intensity of light within the housing could exceed eye-safe intensities but that intensities of light outside the perimeter of the housing would not exceed the eye-safe level. It should be noted that the intensity of the reflection in the second distance area would depend upon the transmissivity of the objects the emitted light reflects off of).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Chen and Witherspoon teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
identify whether a communication connection state with the distance detection sensor is normal, and
display, through the display, a message requesting a confirmation of an assembly state of a connector of the distance detection sensor, based on the communication connection state with the distance detection sensor being abnormal ([0016] of Witherspoon describes receiving communication that a device is powered on or powered off and generating a message for display in response).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Chen and Witherspoon teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor, to identify whether the crosstalk by the window is detected, is configured to:
detect crosstalk based on the second signals, and
determine whether the crosstalk is caused by a window of a housing of the electronic device based on whether intensity values of the second signals are less than a threshold and distribution information on the intensity values of the second signals (the second signals should be below an upper threshold value to indicate presence of the cover glass during normal operation of the device, see claim 2 of Chen), and
wherein the distribution information indicates one or more distance areas corresponding to one or more upper intensity values among the intensity values of the second signals ([0054] of Chen describes how the intensity of light within the housing could exceed eye-safe intensities but that intensities of light outside the perimeter of the housing would not exceed the eye-safe level).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Chen and Witherspoon teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor, to identify whether the crosstalk by the window is detected, is configured to:
detect crosstalk based on the second signals (crosstalk 865 is detected at photodetector 861) received through the distance detection sensor within a specified time from when the first signal is transmitted ([0005] of Chen describes the disclosed VCSEL device being used in time of flight applications which rely on specific time periods for determining measured distances], and
determine whether the crosstalk is caused by a window of a housing of the electronic device based on whether intensity values of the second signals are less than a threshold ([0055] – [0056] of Chen describes reflected light a threshold intensity from an expected light intensity is determined to be light reflected off the window of the housing).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Chen and Witherspoon teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor, to identify whether the crosstalk by the window is detected, is configured to: obtain peak signal strengths of the second signals, and identify whether the housing is assembled to a body of the electronic device, based on a comparison result of the peak signal strengths of the second signals and a threshold ([0055] – [0056] and FIGS. 8A – 8B show / describe situations in which signal strengths including peak signal strengths are used to determine whether the optical element that forms a portion of the device housing is positioned properly).
Regarding Claim 11, Chen teaches a method performed by an electronic device, the method comprising:
receiving, through a distance detection sensor (photodetector 861 / VCSEL 800) of the electronic device (tablet, [0004]), second signals (865) from which a first signal transmitted through the distance detection sensor (861 / 800) is reflected;
identify whether a crosstalk (865) by a window (optical component 852) of a housing of the electronic device is detected based on intensity values ([0055] & claim 1, discusses how changes in photodetector signal (i.e. intensity) reflected off 862 can be determined to increase or decrease by a threshold value) of the second signals measured in distance areas of the distance detection sensor;
providing a first notification indicating that the housing has been normally assembled based on identifying that the crosstalk by the window is detected (control circuit receives sensor readings indicating the photodetector signal is within an expected range of values and maintains VCSEL operation [0055] – [0056] but fails to explicitly describe providing a notification); and
providing a second notification indicating that the housing is not normally assembled based on identifying that the crosstalk by the window is not detected (control circuit receives sensor readings indicating the photodetector signal is outside an expected range of values and halts VCSEL operation due to 852 being damaged, dislodged or laterally displaced from its intended location [0055] – [0056], FIGS. 8A-8B but fails to explicitly describe providing a notification).
However, Witherspoon teaches a notification system that provides notifications in response to a number of different exemplary events including at [0009] mechanical breakdown. Witherspoon at [0017] also teaches sending a notification whether or not a device event has occurred within a set time frame.
Chen and Witherspoon both teach monitoring systems for identifying device operation problems. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have considered it obvious to add notifications indicating after, e.g., a detectable event potentially resulting in damage to a device, such as a shock described in [0007] of Chen, indicating whether or not changes in light reflected off the device housing cover (i.e., crosstalk) is being detected at a level changing substantially enough from its expected level to indicate a problem with the device hardware / housing (see FIG. 8A – 8B of Chen).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Chen and Witherspoon teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the identifying of whether the crosstalk by the window is detected, comprises:
identifying whether each of the intensity values of the second signals is less than a threshold (the second signals should be below an upper threshold value to indicate normal operation, see claim 2 of Chen), and
identifying that the crosstalk by the window is detected based on each of the intensity values of the second signals being less than the threshold (when the second signals are below the upper threshold value the sensor is determined to not be dislodged or damaged, see claim 2).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Chen and Witherspoon teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the distance detection sensor comprises
a light emitting unit comprising light emitting circuitry (VCSEL 800) configured to emit the first signal, and
wherein the distance detection sensor comprises a light receiving unit (photodetector 861) comprising light receiving circuitry configured to receive light from the distance areas.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Chen and Witherspoon teaches the method of claim 11,
wherein the distance areas include a first distance area (interior facing surface of optical component 852) and a second distance area (locations exterior to the perimeter of the housing [0054]),
wherein a distance between the first distance area and the light emitting unit is shorter than a distance between the second distance area and the light emitting unit,
wherein, based on the crosstalk (865) by the window (852) being detected, an intensity of a reflection signal measured in the first distance area is greater than an intensity of a reflection signal measured in the second distance area ([0054] of Chen describes how the intensity of light within the housing could exceed eye-safe intensities but that intensities of light outside the perimeter of the housing would not exceed the eye-safe level. It should be noted that the intensity of the reflection would depend upon the transmissivity of the objects the emitted light reflects off of).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Chen and Witherspoon teaches the method of claim 11, further comprising:
identifying whether a communication connection state with the distance detection sensor is normal, and
displaying, through a display, a message requesting a confirmation of an assembly state of a connector of the distance detection sensor, based on the communication connection state with the distance detection sensor being abnormal ([0016] of Witherspoon describes receiving communication that a device is powered on or powered off and generating a message for display in response).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Chen and Witherspoon teaches the method of claim 11 wherein the identifying of whether the crosstalk by the window is detected, comprises:
detecting crosstalk based on the second signals (crosstalk 865 is detected at photodetector 861), and
determining whether the crosstalk is caused by a window of a housing of the electronic device based on whether intensity values of the second signals are less than a threshold and distribution information on the intensity values of the second signals ([0055] – [0056] of Chen describes reflected light a threshold intensity from an expected light intensity is determined to be light reflected off the window of the housing during normal operation of the device), and
wherein the distribution information indicates one or more distance areas corresponding to one or more upper intensity values among the intensity values of the second signals (this limitation does not appear to further narrow the scope of the claims as it only requires correlation of one upper intensity value at one distance area, which would correspond to the intensity values of crosstalk being below the threshold).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Chen and Witherspoon teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the identifying of whether the crosstalk by the window is detected, comprises:
detecting crosstalk based on the second signals (Chen describes crosstalk 865 being detected at photodetector 861) received through the distance detection sensor within a specified time from when the first signal is transmitted ([0005] of Chen describes the disclosed VCSEL device being used in time of flight applications which rely on specific time periods for determining measured distances], and
determining whether the crosstalk is caused by a window of a housing of the electronic device based on whether intensity values of the second signals are less than a threshold ([0055] – [0056] and FIGS. 8A – 8B show / describe situations in which signal strengths including peak signal strengths are used to determine whether the optical element that forms a portion of the device housing is positioned properly).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Chen and Witherspoon teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the identifying of whether the crosstalk by the window is detected, comprises:
obtaining peak signal strengths of the second signals (all signals including peak signals from reflected light 865 are received and obtained by photodetector 861), and
identifying whether the housing is assembled to a body of the electronic device, based on a comparison result of the peak signal strengths of the second signals and a threshold ([0055] – [0056] of Chen describes reflected light being a threshold intensity from an expected light intensity is determined to be light reflected off the window of the housing during normal operation of the device).
Regarding Claim 20, Chen teaches an electronic device (tablet, [0004]), the electronic device comprising:
at least one processor (control circuit, [0011] & [0013]);
a distance detection sensor (photodetector 861 / VCSEL 800);
a display (tablet [0004], tablets are known to have displays); and
a memory (control circuit described in [0011] and [0013] would have memory storing instructions to operate as described, e.g. [0017] describes recording changes in the signals from the distance detector) configured to store instructions, wherein the at least one processor, when the instructions are executed, is configured to:
identify that at least one condition among one or more check conditions for detecting a failure of a calibration state check for the distance detection sensor is satisfied, and
wherein the one or more check conditions includes at least one of:
a first condition in which a communication connection with the distance detection sensor is abnormal;
a second condition in which an ambient value being equal to or greater than a first threshold is detected;
a third condition in which a peak signal being less than a second threshold is detected in response to a calibration error for the distance detection sensor;
a fourth condition in which a peak signal being equal to or greater than the second threshold is detected in response to the calibration error for the distance detection sensor; or
a fifth condition in which a peak signal being equal to or greater than a third threshold is detected in response to a calibration of the distance detection sensor , wherein the calibration is performed based on a first signal transmitted through the distance detection sensor and second signals from which the first signal is reflected ([0055] – [0056], FIGS. 8A-8B describe how the control circuit receives sensor readings indicating the photodetector signal is outside an expected range of values and halts VCSEL operation due to 852 being damaged, dislodged or laterally displaced from its intended location. The information that the device is damaged, dislodged or laterally displaced would help guide an action of whoever received it).
However, Witherspoon teaches a notification system that provides notifications in response to a number of different exemplary events including at [0009] mechanical breakdown.
Chen and Witherspoon both teach monitoring systems for identifying device operation problems. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have considered it obvious to display notifications indicating after, e.g., a detectable event potentially resulting in damage to a device, such as a shock described in [0007] of Chen, indicating whether or not changes in an amount of light being reflected off the device housing cover (i.e., crosstalk) is being detected at a level different enough from its expected level to indicate a problem with the device hardware / housing (see FIG. 8A – 8B of Chen showing a clear problem with the device housing assembly).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Witherspoon and further in view of US 2022069542 (hereinafter Paños).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Chen and Witherspoon teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
identify whether an ambient value obtained by the distance detection sensor is greater than a threshold ([0009] of Witherspoon teaches generating a condition based on the occurrence of an environmental condition but fails to teach that the condition would be an ambient value of light being greater than a particular level), and
display, through the display, a message guiding a light source environment, based on the ambient value being greater than the threshold ([0009] of Witherspoon suggests providing a notification in response to an environmental condition but fails to specifically suggest guiding a light source environment).
However, Paños at [0008] describes how ambient light makes it hard to tell if an unsafe level of light is being emitted from a distance detection sensor module and also suggests removing the ambient light in order to accurately detect whether the laser emissions are safe.
Both Paños and the combination of Chen and Witherspoon describe systems for monitoring the output transmissions of a distance sensor. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Paños to the electronic device described by the combination of Chen and Witherspoon by supplying a message to the user related to the environmental condition (see [0009] of Witherspoon) of having too much ambient light for an accurate distance sensor measurement and removing ambient light from the calibration as suggested by Paños at [0008] by reducing the ambient light.
Regarding Claim 16, it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Witherspoon and further in view of US US20200241135 (hereinafter Litvak)
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Chen and Witherspoon teaches the electronic device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the at least one processor, to provide the second notification, is configured to display, through the display, a message requesting confirmation of the assembly state of the housing or guiding that a removal of an external object is required.
However, Litvak at [0077] teaches that the accumulation of dirt or dust on the optic lens influences the optical proximity sensor and can trigger unwanted activation of the sensor when the dust increases light reflection that triggers the proximity sensor.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the device taught by the combination of Chen and Witherspoon with the teachings of Litvak to incorporate a message informing the user that accumulated dirt or dust should be removed to allow for accurate operation of the distance sensor in a way that doesn’t trigger early cutoff of the emitter due to the signal being determined to be too strong for eye safety.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WIGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-4208. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 7:00pm.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571)270-5227. 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.
/BENJAMIN DAVID WIGGER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645