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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 15-17 and 19 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to US 20130271697 A1. Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
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 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 of this title, 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.
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.
Claim(s) 15-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 20180039815 A1) in view of Deforest (US 20130271697 A1).
With regards to claims 15-17, Jung discloses a portable electronic device [0039], comprising:
an electronic device housing separating an interior region from an exterior region (Fig. 4A);
a sensor 1720 in an interior region of the electronic device housing (Fig. 4C, 17A); and
a glass [0123] layer 1710 coupled to the electronic device housing that has a locally weakened (thinner portion is generally understood to have less strength compared to the surrounding thicker portions) optical window 1711 region that overlaps the light sensor (Fig. 17A).
Jung does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor comprises a visible or infrared light sensor. Nevertheless, those skilled in the art recognize that the claimed sensor would have been considered an obvious substitution for the fingerprint sensor taught by Jung, since Jung already teaches infrared photodetectors in the touch panel [0074].
Jung also does not teach wherein the weakened region includes laser-induced damage. However, DeForest teaches an electronic device comprising a glass layer with a thinned region form by laser [0021]. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Jung with the claimed method step as taught by DeForest in order to achieve a desired thickness.
With regards to claim 19, Jung discloses wherein the locally weakened optical window region comprises a portion of the glass layer with a locally reduced thickness or recess (Fig. 17A).
Claim(s) 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Kwong.
With regards to claim 21, Jung discloses a portable electronic device [0039], comprising:
an electronic device housing separating an interior region from an exterior region (Fig. 4A);
a sensor 1720 in an interior region of the electronic device housing (Fig. 4C, 17A); and
a glass [0123] layer 1710 coupled to the electronic device housing that has a locally weakened (thinner portion is generally understood to have less strength compared to the surrounding thicker portions) optical window 1711 region that overlaps the sensor (Fig. 17A).
Jung does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor comprises a visible or infrared light sensor. Nevertheless, those skilled in the art recognize that the claimed sensor would have been considered an obvious substitution for the fingerprint sensor taught by Jung, since Jung already teaches infrared photodetectors in the touch panel [0074].
Jung does not teach the claimed shape. However, such a modification would have been considered an obvious matter of design choice. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Jung with the claimed shapes in order to achieve a desired aesthetic. For example, Kwong teaches a similar device comprising a glass layer 500 coupled to an electronic device housing that has a locally weakened (thinner portion is generally understood to have less strength compared to the surrounding thicker portions) optical window 502 region that overlaps a light sensor 306 (Fig. 5). Kwong further states that the thinner region may have any given shape [0029], but also teaches wherein the thinner region may act as a lens [0030] and further wherein lenses may also have any shape including circular [0025]. Therefore in order to provide functionality of a lens, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Jung with a ring-shaped window as taught by Kwong.
With regards to claim 23, Jung discloses wherein the ring-shaped area of locally weakened glass comprises a recess in the glass layer (Fig. 17A).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Kwong and DeForest.
With regards to claim 24, Jung in view of DeForest teach the claimed laser-damaged area (see rejection of claim 15 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are allowed.
Claim 22 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art does not teach: a glass layer coupled to the electronic device housing that has a locally weakened optical window region that overlaps the light sensor, wherein the locally weakened optical window region includes a physical vapor deposition coating configured to weaken the glass layer in the locally weakened optical window region; and/or wherein the ring-shaped area of locally weakened glass surrounds a central area of the glass layer with fewer strength-reducing features than the ring-shaped area of locally weakened glass.
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 MARCUS H TANINGCO whose telephone number is (571)272-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARCUS H TANINGCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884