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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claim(s) 1-29 do not use “means for” (or “step for”) language, or generic placeholders for "means” coupled with functional language without recitation of sufficient structure for carrying out the claimed functions and therefore do not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) 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.
Claim(s) 1, 13, 14, 21, 22 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakata (US 2013/0342518 A1).[claim 1]
Regarding claim 1, Nakata discloses a method for protecting an electronic system in packaging, comprising:
electrically detecting, by a controller of the electronic system, an in-package state of the electronic system with respect to the packaging (Figure 14; Paragraphs 0172-0173; placing the device into a package such as a bag or pocket by detecting changes in illuminance using a sensor having a photoelectric conversion unit); and
limiting, by the controller, the electronic system from performing one or more first set of functions of a plurality of functions responsive to the in-package state indicating the electronic system is within the packaging (Figure 14; Paragraphs 0172-0173; powering off the device; note that in a power off state one or more first set of functions would be limited).[claim 13]
Regarding claim 13, Nakata discloses a method wherein the method is performed by the controller upon a power-up of the electronic system (Figure 14; Paragraphs 0172-0173; note that the method is performed while the device is in a power-on or “power-up” state of the electronic system; while the claim recites “upon a power-up”, the claim is not specific as to the specific as to the particular time in which the operation must be performed relative to a power-up sequence).[claims 14 and 21]
Regarding claims 14 and 21, see the rejection of claims 1 and 13 above and note that Nakata teaches performing the described methods by computer program product for protecting an electronic system in packaging, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having program instructions stored thereon, the program instructions executable by a controller to cause the controller to perform the methods (Paragraphs 0139, 0142, 0223-0226).[claim 22]
Regarding claim 22, see the rejection of claim 1 above and note that Nakata discloses an electronic system including a controller configured to perform the described method (Paragraphs 0139, 0142, 0223-0226).[claim 29]
Regarding claim 29, Nakata discloses wherein the controller is configured to electrically detect the in-package state of the electronic system by detecting an exposure of a photosensitive device to ambient light (Figure 14; Paragraphs 0172-0173).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 15, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakata (US 2013/0342518 A1) in view of Sakaniwa et al. (US 2006/0205445 A1).[claim 2]
Regarding claim 2, Nakata does not disclose permitting, by the controller, a performing of one or more of a second set of functions of the plurality of functions while limiting the performing of the one or more of the first set of functions responsive to the in-package state indicating the electronic system is within the packaging.
Sakaniwa discloses a mobile device which performs operations after a power-off sequence, e.g. permitting, by the controller, a performing of one or more of a second set of functions of the plurality of functions while limiting the performing of the one or more of the first set of functions responsive to the entering of a power-off state (Figure 3; operations other than a communication and location positioning function as turned off while permitting the transmission of positional information by the device). The method of Sakaniwa ensures safety of owner of the mobile device by verifying the location of the device (e.g. Paragraphs 0005-0011, 0040). Therefore, it would have been obvious to permit operations to transmit a location after the power-off event of Nakata as taught by Sakaniwa so that the location of the device may be verified.
Note that in Nakata the power-off is performed in response to detecting an in-package state indicating the electronic system is within the packaging, thus the permitting of operations would similarly be done in response to the detection.[claim 15]
Regarding claim 15, see the rejection of claim 2 above and note that Nakata teaches performing the described methods by computer program product for protecting an electronic system in packaging, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having program instructions stored thereon, the program instructions executable by a controller to cause the controller to perform the method (Paragraphs 0139, 0142, 0223-0226).[claim 23]
Regarding claim 23, see the rejection of claim 2 above and note that Nakata discloses an electronic system including a controller configured to perform the described method (Paragraphs 0139, 0142, 0223-0226).
Claim(s) 12, 20 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakata (US 2013/0342518 A1) in view of Official Notice.[claim 12]
Regarding claim 12, Nakata disclose a method which may include a camera (e.g. Paragraph 0059). However, Nakata does not teach or reasonably suggest wherein limiting the electronic system from performing the one or more first set of functions of the plurality of functions comprises restricting a performance of at least one of: a lens calibration; a motor calibration; a lens movement; a motor movement; or a lighting of a light source of the electronic system.
Official Notice is taken that it is well known in the art to perform various functions including a lens calibration; a motor calibration; a lens movement; a motor movement; or a lighting of a light source of the electronic system in a camera device to provide for lens/motor calibration operations thereby improving performance of the device, lens/motor movement to allow for images to be properly focused and exposed or a lighting of a light source of the electronic system allowing for images to be captured in low illumination environments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to perform a lens calibration; a motor calibration; a lens movement; a motor movement; or a lighting of a light source of the electronic system in a camera device to provide for lens/motor calibration operations thereby improving performance of the device, lens/motor movement to allow for images to be properly focused and exposed or a lighting of a light source of the electronic system allowing for images to be captured in low illumination environments.
Note that since the power-off operation would restrict the performance of functions of the device, these functions would similarly be restricted upon powering off as taught by Nakata.[claim 20]
Regarding claim 20, see the rejection of claim 12 above and note that Nakata teaches performing the described methods by computer program product for protecting an electronic system in packaging, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having program instructions stored thereon, the program instructions executable by a controller to cause the controller to perform the method (Paragraphs 0139, 0142, 0223-0226).[claim 28]
Regarding claim 28, see the rejection of claim 12 above and note that Nakata discloses an electronic system including a controller configured to perform the described method (Paragraphs 0139, 0142, 0223-0226).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-11, 16-19 and 24-27 are 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.[claims 3-11, 16-19 and 24-27]
Regarding claims 3-11, 16-19 and 24-27 the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest configuring the two contacts to be in an open circuit condition when the electronic system is within the packaging and in a closed circuit condition when the electronic system is outside the packaging or wherein electrically detecting the in-package state of the electronic system comprises detecting a proximity of a short range wireless tag of the packaging to a short range wireless detector of the electronic system as claimed.
While Nakata teaches detecting an in-packing or outside the packing state using a sensor, Nakata does not disclose the particular arrangements recited in these claims.
Additionally, while the use of NFC short range wireless communication is generally known in the art (e.g. Ueno et al. (US 2019/0095660 A1)), the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest detecting a packaging state for the purposes of permitting/restriction functions of a device based on NFC/short-range wireless communication as recited in the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Smilansky US 2024/0155341 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J HENN whose telephone number is (571)272-7310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday ~10-6.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at (571) 272-7406. 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.
/Timothy J Henn/