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 . Applicant’s response on 6/17/26 canceled claims 8-9 and 18-20. This response also added new claims 21-24. Claims 1-7, 10-17 and 21-25 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges Chen’s radiation detections are for entirely different purposes. In particular, that Chen is only concerned about eye-safe levels being exceeded and “does not disclose or suggest any relationship with proper assembly”.
Applicant appears to be supporting their argument using selective excerpts from the specification without referencing some of the portions of the specification cited in the previous rejection. While it is true that a major focus of Chen’s disclosure is focused on eye safety, eye safety becomes a concern when the device is not properly assembled. For example, FIGS. 8A and 8B show instances in which optical component 852 is not properly assembled due to some separation 881/882 of optical component 852 from package/housing 851. [0054] of Chen in describing these figures explains how a dislodging of the optical component from the package can result in high irradiance propagating out of the package / housing, thereby making identification of proper assembly important in identifying eye-safe conditions.
Applicant’s assertion that Chen fails to disclose or suggest any relationship with proper assembly appears to be based on an overly restrictive interpretation of the meaning of proper assembly. As the specification does not contain a definition for proper assembly, this term is interpreted broadly. For example, a device that is dropped resulting in the cover glass becoming at least partially dislodged would be considered to not be properly assembled.
The remainder of the substantive arguments are moot as they do not apply to the updated grounds of rejection laid out and described in detail below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 6 and 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, it is unclear what the meaning of a message guiding a light source embodiment refers to as the following limitation was deleted from Claims 6 and 16. Applicant’s remarks/arguments have been reviewed and do not shed any additional light upon the intended meaning. While there is support in the specification for this phrase it remains unclear if the intention is for the user to be informed of an abnormal environment or be requested to adjust the light source environment. [0108] appears to provide support for requesting the user moving the device out of the abnormal lighting environment.
Regarding Claim 16, it recites the limitation “the ambient value”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim or the claims from which it currently depends.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-7, 10-17 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 1, 11 21, they appear to contain new matter. The claims as amended or newly added in the case of claim 21, require the passage or failure of a predefined condition. While the Applicant indicated the new claim amendment was supported by FIG. 12, due to the extremely broad scope of the term predefined condition it is not clear whether the Applicant intended to consider the predefined condition to correspond to block 1207 or block 1209.
Block 1207 Read
If Applicant intended to rely upon block 1207 for support, then the following limitation is not supported by the specification and constitutes new matter.
“in accordance with a determination that the at least one predefined condition is satisfied, provide a first notification indicating that the housing has been normally assembled”
In particular, the specification does not describe determining normal assembly of the housing, since FIG. 12 dictates further analysis as to the assembly state be performed at block 1209, before a determination of normal assembly can be determined.
Block 1209 Read
If Applicant intended to rely upon block 1209 for support, then the first notification would be supported as it appears a calibration state check pass at block 1211 would indicate proper assembly. However, the following limitations would not be supported:
in accordance with a determination that the at least one predefined condition is not satisfied and a strength of a peak signal among the second signals is less than a threshold, provide a second notification indicating that the housing is not normally assembled based on identifying that the crosstalk by the window is not detected,
in accordance with a determination that the at least one predefined condition is not satisfied and the strength of the peak signal among the second signals is greater than the threshold, provide a third notification that an external object is disposed on the window of the housing.
This is very clear as block 1213 simply instructs the user to check assembly state and remove foreign material. No peak signal intensity check occurs at step 1213.
For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will consider the claim intending to refer to block 1207 without considering the predetermined condition when passed to result in a determination of the device being fully assembled.
Regarding Claim 25, FIG. 12 does not support block 1203 replacing block 1207 of FIG. 12 as is currently claimed in Claim 25 and thus constitutes new matter.
Regarding Claims 2-7, 10, 12-17 and 22-25, they are also rejected for depending from a rejected base claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 11-15, 17, 21-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200052466 (hereinafter Chen) in view of US20240241507 (hereinafter Witherspoon) and further in view of US20130286392 (hereinafter Erdtmann).
Paras. 66, 81-82, is less than threshold; Paras. 53-55, 64, 84; S is greater than threshold
Regarding Claim 1, Chen teaches an electronic device (tablet, [0004]), the electronic device comprising:
a housing (851, see FIGS. 8A/8B) including a window (852);
at least one processor comprising processing circuitry (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) storing 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;
determine whether at least one predefined condition is satisfied (865) (optical component 852) based on intensity values of the second signals ([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);
in accordance with a determination that the at least one predefined condition is satisfied, provide a first notification indicating that the housing has been normally assembled ([0055] describes how the VCSEL driver controller monitors the photodetector signal and maintains operation until identifying a signal change but fails to explicitly describe providing a notification); and
in accordance with a determination that the at least one predefined condition is not satisfied and a strength of a peak signal among the second signals is less than a threshold, provide a second notification indicating that the housing is not assembled ([0056] & FIG. 8B describe how the control circuit receives sensor readings indicating the photodetector signal intensity is much smaller than 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)
in accordance with a determination that the at least one predefined condition is not satisfied and the strength of the peak signal among the second signals is greater than the threshold, provide a third notification that an external object is disposed on the window of the housing (Chen fails to teach the use of a signal above a threshold to identify the presence of an external object on the window).
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).
Erdtmann teaches a configuration in which the sensor assembly identifies a blockage of the sensor based on the sensor returns exceeding an obstruction threshold (see FIG. 2D and [0064] of Erdtmann). Erdtmann further teaches that the emission of an obstruction alarm when the obstruction threshold is exceeded (see near end of [0064] of Erdtmann). Erdtmann also teaches the emission of a notification when sensor returns fall below a threshold and suggests a system fault that could be related to a “physical structure of the light detector” (see [0066] of Erdtmann).
Erdtmann and the combination of Chen and Witherspoon both describe optical sensors used in conjunction with emitters for use with devices configured to characterize an environment outside the device and therefore vulnerable to malfunction due to sensor window obstruction. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the teachings of the combination of Chen and Witherspoon to incorporate the teachings of Erdtmann by adding functionality to notify a user to clear an obstruction in response to a sensor return exceeding a threshold prior to disabling the sensor. The advantages of doing so are made clear by Erdtmann [0064], which describes the benefits of eliminating unwanted false alarms for fleeting/minor events, such as an obstruction stuck to or placed in front of the sensor window.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Chen, Witherspoon and Erdtmann teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to:
identify whether each of the second signals is less than an intensity threshold (the second signals should be below an upper threshold value to indicate normal operation, see claim 2 of Chen), and
identify that a crosstalk by the window is detected based on each of intensity values of the second signals being less than the intensity 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, Witherspoon and Erdtmann teaches the electronic device of claim 2, wherein the distance detection sensor comprises
a light emitting unit comprising light emitting circuitry (VCSEL 800) configured to emit the first signal, and
a light receiving unit including light receiving circuitry (photodetector 861) configured to receive reflected light from each of distance areas of the distance detection sensor.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Chen, Witherspoon and Erdtmann 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, Witherspoon and Erdtmann teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device 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, Witherspoon and Erdtmann teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to:
detect a crosstalk based on the second signals, and
determine whether the crosstalk is caused by the window of the housing of the electronic device based on whether the intensity values of the second signals are less than an intensity 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 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;
determining whether at least one predefined condition related to an assembly status of a housing of the electronic device is satisfied based on intensity values of the second signals;
in accordance with a determination that the at least one predefined condition is satisfied, providing a first notification indicating that the housing has been normally assembled ([0055] describes how the VCSEL driver controller monitors the photodetector signal and maintains operation, indicating a normal assembly state, until identifying a signal change but fails to explicitly describe providing a notification)
in accordance with a determination that the at least one predefined condition is not satisfied and a strength of a peak signal among the second signals is less than a threshold, providing a second notification indicating that the housing is not assembled ([0056] & FIG 8B describe how the control circuit receives sensor readings indicating the photodetector signal is below an expected range of values and [0055] describes how VCSEL operation are halted due to 852 being damaged, dislodged or laterally displaced from its intended location, however Chen fails to explicitly describe providing a notification of such an occurrence); and
in accordance with a determination that the at least one predefined condition is not satisfied and the strength of the peak signal among the second signals is greater than the threshold, providing a third notification indicating that an external object is disposed at a window of the housing (Chen fails to teach the use of a signal above a threshold to identify the presence of an external object on the window).
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).
Erdtmann teaches a configuration in which the sensor assembly identifies a blockage of the sensor based on the sensor returns exceeding an obstruction threshold (see FIG. 2D and [0064] of Erdtmann). Erdtmann also teaches the emission of an obstruction alarm when the obstruction threshold is exceeded (see near end of [0064] of Erdtmann). Erdtmann further teaches that the emission of a notification when sensor returns fall below a threshold indicating a system fault that could be related to a “physical structure of the light detector” (see [0066] of Erdtmann).
Erdtmann and the combination of Chen and Witherspoon both describe optical sensors used in conjunction with emitters for use with devices configured to characterize an environment outside the device and therefore vulnerable to malfunction due to sensor window obstruction and the use of alarms to notify a user of sensor state changes. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the teachings of the combination of Chen and Witherspoon to incorporate the teachings of Erdtmann by adding functionality to notify a user to clear an obstruction in response to a sensor return exceeding a threshold prior to disabling the sensor. The advantages of doing so are made clear by Erdtmann [see 0064], which describes the benefits of eliminating unwanted false alarms for fleeting/minor events, such as an obstruction stuck to or placed in front of the sensor window.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Chen, Witherspoon and Erdtmann teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the determining of whether the at least one predefined condition is satisfied, comprises:
identifying whether each of the intensity values of the second signals is less than an intensity threshold (the second signals should be below an upper threshold value to indicate normal operation, see claim 2 of Chen), and
identifying that a crosstalk by the window is detected based on each of the intensity values of the second signals being less than the intensity 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, Witherspoon and Erdtmann teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the distance detection sensor comprises
a light emitting unit comprising light emitting circuitry (VCSEL 800) configured to emit the first signal, and
a light receiving unit (photodetector 861) comprising light receiving circuitry configured to receive light from each of distance areas of the distance detection sensor.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Chen, Witherspoon and Erdtmann teaches the method of claim 13,
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, Witherspoon and Erdtmann teaches the method of claim 11, 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, Witherspoon and Erdtmann teaches the method of claim 11 wherein the determining of whether the at least one predefined condition is satisfied, comprises:
detecting a crosstalk based on the second signals (crosstalk 865 is detected at photodetector 861), and
determining whether the crosstalk is caused by the window of the housing of the electronic device based on whether the intensity values of the second signals are less than an intensity 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 21, Chen teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause an electronic device to perform operations including:
receiving, through a distance detection sensor of the electronic device, second signals (865, see FIGS. 8A, 8B) from which a first signal transmitted through the distance detection sensor is reflected;
determining whether at least one predefined condition related to an assembly status of a housing of the electronic device is satisfied based on intensity values of the second signals ([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);
in accordance with a determination that the at least one predefined condition is satisfied, providing a first notification indicating that the housing has been normally assembled ([0055] describes how the VCSEL driver controller monitors the photodetector signal and maintains operation until identifying a signal change but fails to explicitly describe providing a notification);
in accordance with a determination that the at least one predefined condition is not satisfied and a strength of a peak signal among the second signals is less than a threshold, providing a second notification indicating that the housing is not assembled ([0056] & FIG. 8B describe how the control circuit receives sensor readings indicating the photodetector signal intensity is much smaller than 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); and
in accordance with a determination that the at least one predefined condition is not satisfied and the strength of the peak signal among the second signals is greater than the threshold, providing a third notification indicating that an external object is disposed at a window of the housing (Chen fails to teach the use of a signal above a threshold to identify the presence of an external object on the window).
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).
Erdtmann teaches a configuration in which the sensor assembly identifies a blockage of the sensor based on the sensor returns exceeding an obstruction threshold (see FIG. 2D and [0064] of Erdtmann). Erdtmann further teaches that the emission of an obstruction alarm when the obstruction threshold is exceeded (see near end of [0064] of Erdtmann). Erdtmann also teaches the emission of a notification when sensor returns fall below a threshold and suggests a system fault could be related to a change in a “physical structure of the light detector” (see [0066] of Erdtmann).
Erdtmann and the combination of Chen and Witherspoon both describe optical sensors used in conjunction with emitters for use with devices configured to characterize an environment outside the device and therefore vulnerable to malfunction due to sensor window obstruction. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the teachings of the combination of Chen and Witherspoon to incorporate the teachings of Erdtmann by adding functionality to notify a user to clear an obstruction in response to a sensor return exceeding a threshold prior to disabling the sensor. The advantages of doing so are made clear by Erdtmann [0064], which describes the benefits of eliminating unwanted false alarms for fleeting/minor events, such as an obstruction stuck to or placed in front of the sensor window.
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Chen, Witherspoon and Erdtmann teaches the electronic device of claim 1,
wherein the second signals are received within a specified time from when the first signal is transmitted, and wherein the specified time is associated with a distance between the distance detection sensor and the window of the housing in a normally assembled state. (the signals would be identified within the specified time when the window is in a normally assembled state. Examiner notes little weight can be assigned to this claim as there is no trigger or state change in response to the second signals arriving within the specified time).
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Chen, Witherspoon and Erdtmann teaches the method of Claim 11, wherein the second signals are received within a specified time from when the first signal is transmitted, and wherein the specified time is associated with a distance between the distance detection sensor and the window of the housing in a normally assembled state (the signals would be identified within the specified time when the window is in a normally assembled state. Examiner notes little weight can be assigned to this claim as there is no trigger or state change in response to the second signals arriving within the specified time).
Claims 6, 16, 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Chen, Witherspoon and Erdtmann in view of US 2022069542 (hereinafter Paños).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Chen, Witherspoon and Erdtmann teaches the electronic device of claim 22, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to:
in accordance with a determination that the ambient value obtained by the distance detection sensor is greater than the noise 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)
display, through the display, a message guiding a light source environment ([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, Witherspoon and Erdtmann 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, the combination of Chen, Witherspoon, Erdtmann and Paños as applied to Claim 6 teaches the method of claim 24, comprising
in accordance with a determination that the ambient value obtained by the distance detection sensor is greater than the noise threshold, displaying, through a display, a message guiding a light source environment ([0009] of Witherspoon suggests providing a notification in response to an environmental condition but fails to specifically suggest guiding a light source environment) & ([0008] of Paños 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).
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Chen, Witherspoon, Erdtmann and Paños as applied to Claim 6 teaches the electronic device of claim 1, but does not specifically teach the remainder of the claim:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to:
determine whether an ambient value obtained by the distance detection sensor is greater than a noise threshold
in accordance with a determination that the ambient value obtained by the distance detection sensor is not greater than the noise threshold, perform the determination of whether the at least one predefined condition is satisfied or not (see rejection of claim 1).
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 confirming a bad lighting environment is not contributing to a false positive occurrence of laser light leakage or sensor blockage.
Regarding Claim 25, it is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 23.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Chen, Witherspoon and Erdtmann in view of US PG PUB 20200241135 (hereinafter Litvak)
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Chen, Witherspoon and Erdtmann teaches the electronic device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the second notification comprises a message requesting confirmation of the assembly status of the housing and wherein the third notification comprises a message guiding that a removal of the external object is required.
However, Litvak at [0077] teaches that the accumulation of dirt or dust on the optic lens of an optical proximity sensor (OPS) 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights