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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The examiner reviewed IDS document(s) received on 11/29/23, carefully considering the art cited within the document(s).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,868,456. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are essentially broader version of the allowed claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to.
Specifically, in claim 1, the phrases “coupled to a first of the top connector and bottom connector” as well as “coupled to a second of the top connector and bottom connector” should be phrased indicating more clearly that the elements could be coupled to a subset of the first (one of the top or bottom) and second (one of the top or bottom). connectors. Similar articulation should be emphasized in claim 2-3.
The term “couple” in claim 2 should read “coupled”
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.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 12, 14-15 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Dell (Dell Inspiron 1520 Owner’s Manual”, found at https://dl.dell.com/manuals/all-products/esuprt_laptop/esuprt_inspiron_laptop/inspiron-1520_owner's%20manual_en-us.pdf, 10/07) in view of Colella (USPUB 20120032782), Leaming (USPUB 20040250191) or, in alternative, Naka (USPUB 2020094510), and further in view of Park (USPUB 20070022311) or, in alternative, Wanner (USPUB 20200257348).
As per claims 1-4, 6-7, 12, 14-15 and 17, Dell teaches a modular station, comprising: a core unit comprising circuitry, and at least a top connector and a bottom connector (laptop’s components including display, camera, USB connectors, etc. as seen on pg. 22 and 29, for example).
Dell does not teach the circuitry operable to detect power requirements of at least one component coupled to at least one of the top connector or the bottom connector and provide power according to the power requirements.
However, such solution would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed as illustrated by Park (detecting power to be supplied to the USB device and information on the amount of driving power required by the connected USB device based on the unique id provided from the connected USB device, para 39) or Wanner (determine the expected power requirements for different types of computer modules, e.g. para 84). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to include Park’ or Wanner’s teaching into Dell invention given the predictable benefit of operability and efficiency.
Dell as modified teaches the top connector and the bottom connector as discussed above. Dell as modified does not teach a standalone end cap that is communicably and electrically coupled to at least one of the top connector and the bottom connector. However, Naka (bar code reader, para 70) and Leaming (see card reader, para 98) illustrate that such solution would have been obvious variant in the art of computing at the time the application was) offering the predictable benefit of customization.
Dell as modified does not teach a standalone end cap that is communicably and electrically coupled to the one of the top connector and the bottom connector; and a module, including a biometric sensor/fingerprint scanner, that is communicably and electrically coupled to the first of the top connector and the bottom connector via the module end cap. However, in the related art, Colella suggests such solution (see element 90 in Fig. 1 and illustrated in Fig. 3, with the associated text). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include Colella’s teaching into Dell as modified invention given the benefit of security.
Lastly, a skilled in the art would readily appreciate that devices, such as Dell, include variety of modules and clearly, the fact that removing one of the modules taught by Dell as modified (one of the USB devices) would not prevent the operation of another and, clearly a skilled in the art would not limit the invention to a single standalone device such as memory stick. Thus, having any additional device being placed in place of another would have been at least an obvious variant offering the benefit of customization.
While Dell as modified teaches the second module including various devices such as a card and biometric reader, the art does not address a thermal sensor required by claim 5. However, it is noted that the particular type of the second module would not affect the functionality of the invention while having any kind of device, including thermal device as a second module would been an obvious variant offering the predictable benefit of customization.
As per claims 18-19, not only Colella expressly teaching light components (see elements 114s in Fig. 3) but also a skilled in the art would readily appreciate [Official Notice is taken] that lighting components in other devices (e.g., memory stick/flash drives) would have been obvious old and well known in the art of computing at the time the application was filed offering the benefit of usability and customization.
As per the limitation of claims 8 and 10, although Collella teaches the device with the biometric sensor performing biometric identification, Official Notice is taken that having circuitry of a station performing biometric identification would have been old and well known in the art at the time the application was filed (biometric authentication provided by a computing device based on the data received from the attached device such as POS stations) offering the benefit of customization.
Claim(s) 9, 11, 13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Dell in view of Colella, Park/Wanner and Leaming/Naka, and further in view of Alamlik (USPUB 20020158750).
Dell as modified teaches the core unit operable to use the module to perform a second type of biometric (fingerprint) identification, as discussed above, but fails to teach the core unit operable to perform facial recognition.
While Dell as modified teaches the core unit including at least one camera but fails to teach performing a first type of biometrics, the facial recognition. However, in the related art Alamlik teaches performing facial recognition with the use of at least one camera (see Fig. 2 and associated text). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include Alamlik’s teaching into Dell as modified given the benefit of security and customization.
As per claims 11 and 20, clearly a module scanning a face would detect anything on the face, including glasses.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Dell in view of Colella, Park/Wanner and Leaming/Naka, and further in view of Cheng (USPUB 20110043534).
Dell as modified teaches the core unit as discussed above.
Dell as modified does not, but in the related art, Cheng teaches ambient light sensor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include Cheng’s sensor into Dell as modified invention given the benefit of dynamically adjusting the brigtheness of the back light source.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Poltorak whose telephone number is (571) 272-3840. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached on (571) 272-6798. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/PIOTR POLTORAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433