DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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, 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 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.
Claim(s) 21-23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, and 35-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalscheur et al. (US 9,846,473, “Kalscheur”) in view of Click et al. (US 2020/0017398, “Click”).
Regarding claims 21 and 35, Kalscheur teaches an electronic device comprising a display (e.g., col. 3, lines 1-45, Fig. 2) a biometric sensor (col. 1 lines 30-68, Fig. 6) including an infrared emitter (e.g., Fig. 6, IR light source, col. 6 lines 25 – 45) and may include an enclosure having a cover layer (col. 3 lines 45 – 68, col 4 lines 10 – 45) and may include an infrared image sensor (e.g., col. 1 line 50 – col. 2 line 5). Kalscheur teaches the cover member may be made of glass or ceramic materials (col. 4 lines 5 – 30). Kalscheur additionally teaches the cover window member may be transparent to visible light (e.g., col. 9 line 60 – col. 10 line 10, i.e., may be transparent to greater than 80% of visible light) and may transmit infrared light at greater than 80% (col. 8 lines 5 – 45, col. 5 lines 55 – 65). While Kalscheur teaches that the cover member may be made of glass or ceramic materials (col. 4 lines 5 – 30), Kalscheur fails to specifically teach that the cover glass is a glass-ceramic. However, in the same field of endeavor of glass cover articles for use in display devices (e.g., [0077]) Click teaches that a cover glass may usefully be a glass ceramic material (e.g., [0002], [0016], [0020]). It therefore would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have substituted the cover of Click for that of Kalscheur for its good warp, stress, haze, transparency, hardness, and toughness properties ([0002]) or else to have adjusted the cover of Kalscheur consistent with the teachings of Click so as to provide a glass ceramic article with good transparency ([0427], [0296], [0016], [0020]).
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Kalscheur teaches to include a camera (e.g., col. 1 lines 5-30) but fails to teach the claimed haze value. However, in the same field of endeavor of glass cover articles for use in display devices (e.g., [0077]) Click teaches that a cover glass may usefully have a haze of less than 1% (e.g., [0016], [0020], less than 0.2 and see [0296], [0427], wherein the haze value is tunable and can be tailored by adjusting the process of making the article). Click additionally teaches a crystalline amount to be included on a range of greater than 20% (e.g., [0011], [0012]). It therefore would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have substituted the cover of Click for that of Kalscheur or else to have adjusted the cover of Kalscheur consistent with the teachings of Click so as to provide it with a low haze level in order to provide the article with good transparency ([0427], [0296], [0016], [0020]).
Regarding claims 25 and 26, Kalscheur teaches generally to include an infrared biometric detection sensor and teaches that the sensor is not particularly limited and teaches generally an array of infrared elements may be used to detect information about a user (thus, if more than one diode or laser is emitting an infrared light it such a sensor may be considered to produce a spatial dot pattern of infrared light, col. 6 lines 25 – 65).
Regarding claims 28 and 29, Kalscheur teaches an electronic device comprising a display (e.g., col. 3, lines 1-45, Fig. 2) a biometric sensor (col. 1 lines 30-68, Fig. 6) including an infrared emitter (e.g., Fig. 6, IR light source, col. 6 lines 25 – 45) and may include an enclosure having a cover layer (col. 3 lines 45 – 68, col 4 lines 10 – 45) and may include an infrared image sensor (e.g., col. 1 line 50 – col. 2 line 5). Kalscheur teaches the cover member may be made of glass or ceramic materials (col. 4 lines 5 – 30). Kalscheur additionally teaches the cover window member may be transparent to visible light (e.g., col. 9 line 60 – col. 10 line 10) and may transmit infrared light at greater than 80% (col. 8 lines 5 – 45, col. 5 lines 55 – 65). Kalscheur teaches to include a camera (e.g., col. 1 lines 5-30) but fails to teach the claimed haze value or that the glass component is a crystalline ceramic cover. However, in the same field of endeavor of glass cover articles for use in display devices (e.g., [0077]) Click teaches that a cover glass may usefully have a haze of less than 1% (e.g., [0016], [0020], less than 0.2 and see [0296], [0427], wherein the haze value is tunable and can be tailored by adjusting the process of making the article) and a crystalline amount to be included on a range of greater than 20% (e.g., [0011], [0012]). It therefore would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have substituted the cover of Click for that of Kalscheur or else to have adjusted the cover of Kalscheur consistent with the teachings of Click so as to provide it with a low haze level in order to provide the article with good transparency ([0427], [0296], [0016], [0020]).
Regarding claims 31 and 32, Kalscheur teaches to include a camera (e.g., col. 1 lines 5-30) but fails to teach the claimed haze value. However, in the same field of endeavor of glass cover articles for use in display devices (e.g., [0077]) Click teaches that a cover glass may usefully have a haze of less than 1% (e.g., [0016], [0020], less than 0.2 and see [0296], [0427], wherein the haze value is tunable and can be tailored by adjusting the process of making the article). Click additionally teaches a crystalline amount to be included on a range of greater than 20% (e.g., [0011], [0012]). It therefore would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have substituted the cover of Click for that of Kalscheur or else to have adjusted the cover of Kalscheur consistent with the teachings of Click so as to provide it with a low haze level in order to provide the article with good transparency ([0427], [0296], [0016], [0020]).
Regarding claims 36 and 37, Kalscheur teaches to include a camera (e.g., col. 1 lines 5-30) but fails to teach the claimed haze value or amount of crystalline phase to be included. However, in the same field of endeavor of glass cover articles for use in display devices (e.g., [0077]) Click teaches that a cover glass may usefully have a haze of less than 1% (e.g., [0016], [0020], less than 0.2 and see [0296], [0427], wherein the haze value is tunable and can be tailored by adjusting the process of making the article) and a crystalline amount to be included on a range of greater than 20% (e.g., [0011], [0012]). It therefore would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have substituted the cover of Click for that of Kalscheur or else to have adjusted the cover of Kalscheur consistent with the teachings of Click so as to provide it with a low haze level in order to provide the article with good transparency ([0427], [0296], [0016], [0020]).
Regarding claim 38, modified Kalscheur (Click) additionally teaches the cover glass may have a thickness on the range of from 0.3 mm to 1.0 mm (Click, [0017]).
Regarding claim 39, modified Kalscheur (Click) additionally teaches that the cover glass may be chemically strengthened (e.g., ion exchange strengthening, Click, [0269]) and may have a compressive stress of greater than 175 MPa (Click, [0008], [0269], thus having a compressive stress layer).
Claim(s) 24, 27, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalscheur in view of Click as applied to claim 21, 22, and 29, above, and further in view of Fu et al. (US 2015/0376055, “Fu”).
Regarding claim 24, Kalscheur fails to specifically teach appropriate L*a*b* color space coordinates for the cover member. However, in the same field of endeavor of cover glasses for use in display devices ([0022]), Fu teaches appropriate color coordinates for a* of from about -0.5 to about 0.5 ([0048]) and for b* of from about -2.5 to about 2.5 ([0048]) and that it is known to tune such coordinates and such coordinates may be considered aesthetically pleasing ([0006], [0021]). It therefore would have been obvious to have adjusted the for a* value of the cover of modified Kalscheur to from about -0.5 to about 0.5 ([0048]) and for b* to from about -2.5 to about 2.5 ([0048]) in order to tune such coordinates so as to be considered aesthetically pleasing ([0006], [0021]).
Regarding claim 27, Kalscheur fails to specifically teach the inclusion of a wireless antenna in the device. However, such a cellular telephone would necessarily require an antenna in order to receive and communicate information from cellular towers, Wi-Fi access points and the like. Additionally, Fu teaches that such components are known and it is useful to make a glass cover transparent to radio and microwaves so as to permit the device to function ([0070]) and thus the inclusion would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing (at least in order to make a functional mobile telephone).
Regarding claim 30, the combination remains as applied to claim 29, above. Kalscheur teaches to include a camera (e.g., col. 1 lines 5-30) but fails to teach the dielectric constant. However, Fu additionally teaches to place provide a glass cover having a dielectric constant of less than about 10 in order to provide good radio and microwave transparency and thus adjusting the dielectric constant to within this range would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing (Fu, [0070]).
Claim(s) 33, 34, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalscheur in view of Click as applied to claims 28 and 36, above, and further in view of Prest et al. (US 2020/0057525, “Prest”).
Regarding claims 33 and 34, the combination remains as applied to claim 29, above. Kalscheur teaches generally that the cover component may be made of more than one section or member (see Figs. 6 and 9, col. 7 line 55 – col. 8 line 40, col. 5 lines 5-68, and thus may be considered to have first and second cover members).Kalscheur fails to specifically teach the inclusion of a wireless charging system. However, in the same field of endeavor of mobile display devices ([0004]), Prest teaches to include such a charging system in order to obviate the need for charging ports ([0134]) and thus it would have been obvious to have included such a wireless charging system (Prest, [0134]). Kalscheur fails to teach that the glass component is a crystalline ceramic cover. However, in the same field of endeavor of glass cover articles for use in display devices (e.g., [0077]) Click teaches a cover glass (e.g., [0016], [0020], less than 0.2 and see [0296], [0427], wherein the haze value is tunable and can be tailored by adjusting the process of making the article) having a crystalline amount to be included on a range of greater than 20% (e.g., [0011], [0012]). Click additionally teaches the cover may be opaque ([0412]). It therefore would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have substituted the cover of Click for that of Kalscheur or else to have adjusted the cover of Kalscheur consistent with the teachings of Click so as to provide it with a low haze level in order to provide the article with good transparency ([0427], [0296], [0016], [0020]).
Regarding claim 40, Kalscheur fails to specifically teach the inclusion of a oleophobic coating, however such coatings are known in the art and it would have been obvious to have adopted one in order to provide the device with a different but desirable tactile response (see Prest [0281]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J FROST whose telephone number is (571)270-5618. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 571-272-8935. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights