FORCE-DEFLECTION BASED LEAK
DETECTION FOR MOBILE DEVICE
FIRST OFFICE ACTION
DRAWINGS
The drawings have been considered and approved.
TITLE
The title has been considered and approved.
ABSTRACT
The abstract has been considered and approved.
SPECIFICATION
The specification has been considered and approved.
CLAIMS
In the event that the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the rationale supporting the rejection would be the same.
Objections
Claim 12, the word “process” should be changed to --processes--.
35 U.S.C. § 112
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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 1 - 7, 10 - 12, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are 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 inventors regard as the invention.
Independent claim 1, line 4; the limitation “determine the force applied and a displacement of the display” is indefinite as to what is actually being determined. A suggested correction is to change the limitation to read --determine the amount of force applied and an amount of displacement of the display--.
Claim 4, the term “the sensor” should be changed to --the sensing device--.
Claim 7 references “the difference in distance to the predetermined value”. However, such a distance or value have not been previously set forth.
Claim 7 references “the frame”. However, such a frame has not been previously set forth.
Claim 10 is indefinite as to how a linear motor captures the data as claimed, ie. the displacement of the display.
Claim 15 is indefinite as what the terms “offset, deflection, and compression” are in reference to.
Claim 16 is indefinite as to the specific meaning of the claim.
Claim 19 references “displacement of the display” which has not been previously set forth.
Claim 20 is indefinite as what the terms “offset, deflection, and compression” are in reference to.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Under 35 U.S.C. 101, whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 2, 4 - 9, and 13 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (ie. a judicial exception) without any additional elements being claimed that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 is directed to a system that captures data and then determines a displacement of a display. Such a system is deemed as being a judicial exception because the requirements of the system can be carried out by a mere mental process (ie. observation), for one can simply observe, and thus determine, the force applied to the display and, as a result, the displacement of the display.
With respect to claim 2, an operator’s hand meets the requirement of the pressing device as claimed.
With respect to claim 4, an operator’s intellectual ability serves as the sensing device as claimed.
With respect to claim 5, an operator’s intellectual ability serves as the processing device as claimed with the recognition that greater force equates to greater displacement.
With respect to claim 6, an operator’s intellectual ability serves as the processing device as claimed with the recognition that pass criteria equates to no display displacement and failure criteria equates to display displacement.
With respect to claim 7, an operator’s intellectual ability serves as the determination if the display has been displaced an unacceptable amount.
Independent claim 8 is directed to a system that captures data and then determines if a seal is leaking. Such a system is deemed as being a judicial exception because the requirements of the system can be carried out by a mere mental process (ie. observation), for one can simply observe, and thus determine, a leaking seal as a result of a force being applied to a device.
Independent claim 9 is directed to a method of evaluating a seal of a device by capturing data of a force and movement of a display to determine if the device is leaking. Such a method is deemed as being a judicial exception because the method can be carried out by a mere mental process, for one can simply observe, and thus determine, a leaking device as a result of a force being applied to the device.
With respect to claim 13, an operator’s intellectual ability serves as the processing device as claimed with the recognition that greater force equates to greater displacement.
With respect to claim 14, an operator’s intellectual ability serves as the processing device as claimed with the recognition that greater force equates to greater displacement while comparing the displacement to an acceptable value.
With respect to claim 15, an operator has the ability to mentally calculate a deflection as claimed whereas the deflection is indicative of the display displacement after a force has been placed on the display and then enter that information into a computer.
With respect to claim 16, an operator can simply enter measured information into a computer to meet the claimed requirement.
Independent claim 17 is directed to a program that captures data and then determines if a seal is leaking. Such a program is deemed as being a judicial exception because the requirements of the program can be carried out by a mere mental process (ie. observation), for one can simply observe, and thus determine, a leaking seal as a result of a force being applied to a device.
With respect to claim 18, an operator can simply observe a force being applied to the display of the device by a linear motor.
With respect to claim 19, an operator can simply observe a force being applied to the display of the device by a linear motor while observing the displacement of the display based on the amount of force being applied with the recognition that the greater the force, the greater the displacement.
With respect to claim 20, an operator has the ability to mentally calculate a deflection as claimed whereas the deflection is indicative of the display displacement after a force has been placed on the display and then enter that information into a computer.
35 U.S.C. § 102
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), a person shall be entitled to a patent unless the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zeng et al. (2019/0138125).
With respect to independent claim 1, Zeng et al. set forth a system of evaluating a mobile device (Fig. 3), comprising:
a sensing device (306) that captures data while a force (322) is being applied to a display (300) of the mobile device while the mobile device is held stationary; and
a processing device (Fig. 1; 110) to process the data and determine the force applied and a displacement of the display (by way of a capacitance measurement) while the force is being applied (paragraphs 4 - 5).
With respect to claim 2, Zeng et al. set forth a pressing device (320) that applies the force perpendicular to an outer surface of the display (Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 4, Zeng et al. set forth that the sensor (306) captures data while the display is being displaced (Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 5, Zeng et al. set forth that the processing device presents processed data as a graph of the force applied versus displacement of the display while the force is being applied (Fig. 4).
CITED DOCUMENTS
The Applicant’s attention is directed to the “PTO-892” form for the relevant art made of record at the time of this Office Action.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the Examiner should be directed to Eric S. McCall whose telephone number is 571-272-2183. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. For questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center at 866-217-9197.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is advised to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form.
/Eric S. McCall/
Primary Examiner