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 .
The action is in response to the application filed on 07/31/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140275949 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Takahashi”) in view of US 20110188025 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Haas”).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi teaches a portable electronic device (abstract; as shown in Figure 1A) comprising:
a housing including a photoemitter and a photodetector (paragraphs [0103]-[0104]; as shown in Figure 4), wherein a portion of the housing includes:
a first transparent region aligned with the photoemitter (paragraphs [0103]-[0104]; as shown in Figure 4);
a second transparent region aligned with the photodetector (paragraphs [0103]-[0104]; as shown in Figure 4); and
an opaque region extending between the first transparent region and the second transparent region (100; paragraphs [0103]-[0104], [0108]; as shown in Figure 4).
However, Takahashi does not explicitly teach the opaque region being at an acute angle to a surface of the portion.
Haas teaches the opaque region being at an acute angle to a surface of the portion (as shown in Figure 2, 10). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Takahashi, to have an angled opaque region, as taught by Haas, because this “leads to a region enlargement G′ without increasing the crosstalk or the influence of the environmental variables” (paragraph [0075]; as taught by Haas).
Regarding claim 8, Takahashi teaches a portable electronic device (abstract; as shown in Figure 1A) comprising:
a housing including a photoemitter and a photodetector (paragraphs [0103]-[0104]; as shown in Figure 4), wherein a portion of the housing includes:
a first transparent region aligned with the photoemitter (paragraphs [0103]-[0104]; as shown in Figure 4);
a second transparent region aligned with the photodetector (paragraphs [0103]-[0104]; as shown in Figure 4); and
an opaque region extending between the first transparent region and the second transparent region (100; paragraphs [0103]-[0104], [0108]; as shown in Figure 4).
However, Takahashi does not explicitly teach the opaque region being at an acute angle to a surface of the portion.
Haas teaches the opaque region being at an obtuse angle to a surface of the portion (as shown in Figure 2, 10). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Takahashi, to have an angled opaque region, as taught by Haas, because this “leads to a region enlargement G′ without increasing the crosstalk or the influence of the environmental variables” (paragraph [0075]; as taught by Haas).
Regarding claim 15, Takahashi teaches a portable electronic device (abstract; as shown in Figure 1A) comprising:
a housing including a photoemitter and a photodetector (paragraphs [0103]-[0104]; as shown in Figure 4), wherein a portion of the housing includes:
a first transparent region aligned with the photoemitter (paragraphs [0103]-[0104]; as shown in Figure 4);
a second transparent region aligned with the photodetector (paragraphs [0103]-[0104]; as shown in Figure 4); and
an opaque region extending between the first transparent region and the second transparent region (100; paragraphs [0103]-[0104], [0108]; as shown in Figure 4).
However, Takahashi does not explicitly teach the opaque region being at an acute angle to a surface of the portion.
Haas teaches the opaque region being at a non-perpendicular angle to a surface of the portion (as shown in Figure 2, 10). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Takahashi, to have an angled opaque region, as taught by Haas, because this “leads to a region enlargement G′ without increasing the crosstalk or the influence of the environmental variables” (paragraph [0075]; as taught by Haas).
PNG
media_image1.png
740
1135
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Takahashi, in view of Haas, teaches wherein:
the surface is a first surface of the portion and the portion includes a second surface opposite the first surface (as shown in Figure 25; as taught by Takahashi);
the opaque region is positioned between the first surface and the second surface (as shown in Figure 25; as taught by Takahashi);
a first axis is defined from a center of the first surface to a center of the second surface (as shown in Figure 25; as taught by Takahashi); and
the opaque region extends along a second axis from the first surface to the second surface transverse to the first axis (as shown in Figure 25; as taught by Takahashi).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 19, Takahashi, in view of Haas, teaches wherein a first angle is defined in the first transparent region between the second axis and the first surface, and a second angle is defined in the second transparent region between the second axis and the first surface different than the first angle (as shown in Figure 25; as taught by Takahashi; as shown in Figure 2, 10; as taught by Haas).
Regarding claim 4, 11, and 17, Takahashi, in view of Haas, teaches wherein the first axis is perpendicular to the first surface (as shown in Figure 25; as taught by Takahashi).
Regarding claim 5, 12, and 18, Takahashi, in view of Haas, teaches wherein the opaque region extends from the first surface to the second surface (as shown in Figure 25; as taught by Takahashi).
Regarding claim 6 and 14, Takahashi, in view of Haas, teaches wherein the surface is a planar surface (as shown in Figure 25; as taught by Takahashi).
Regarding claim 7, 13, and 20, Takahashi, in view of Haas, teaches wherein the first transparent region includes a first surface area and the second transparent region includes a second surface area different than the first surface area (as shown in Figure 25; as taught by Takahashi).
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 10702211 B2 in view of US 20110188025 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Haas”).
Regarding claims 1-7, US 10702211 B2 teaches all the limitations of the claims except for the opaque region extending at an acute angle to a surface of the portion. However, Haas teaches the opaque region being at an acute angle to a surface of the portion (as shown in Figure 2, 10). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of US 10702211 B2, to have an angled opaque region, as taught by Haas, because this “leads to a region enlargement G′ without increasing the crosstalk or the influence of the environmental variables” (paragraph [0075]; as taught by Haas).
Regarding claims 8-14, US 10702211 B2 teaches all the limitations of the claims except for the opaque region extending at an obtuse angle to a surface of the portion. However, Haas teaches the opaque region being at an acute angle to a surface of the portion (as shown in Figure 2, 10). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of US 10702211 B2, to have an angled opaque region, as taught by Haas, because this “leads to a region enlargement G′ without increasing the crosstalk or the influence of the environmental variables” (paragraph [0075]; as taught by Haas).
Regarding claims 15-20, US 10702211 B2 teaches all the limitations of the claims except for the opaque region extending at a non perpendicular angle to a surface of the portion. However, Haas teaches the opaque region being at an acute angle to a surface of the portion (as shown in Figure 2, 10). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of US 10702211 B2, to have an angled opaque region, as taught by Haas, because this “leads to a region enlargement G′ without increasing the crosstalk or the influence of the environmental variables” (paragraph [0075]; as taught by Haas).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12064265 B2 in view of US 20110188025 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Haas”).
Regarding claims 1-7, US 12064265 B2 teaches all the limitations of the claims except for the opaque region extending at an acute angle to a surface of the portion. However, Haas teaches the opaque region being at an acute angle to a surface of the portion (as shown in Figure 2, 10). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of US 12064265 B2, to have an angled opaque region, as taught by Haas, because this “leads to a region enlargement G′ without increasing the crosstalk or the influence of the environmental variables” (paragraph [0075]; as taught by Haas).
Regarding claims 8-14, US 12064265 B2 teaches all the limitations of the claims except for the opaque region extending at an obtuse angle to a surface of the portion. However, Haas teaches the opaque region being at an acute angle to a surface of the portion (as shown in Figure 2, 10). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of US 12064265 B2, to have an angled opaque region, as taught by Haas, because this “leads to a region enlargement G′ without increasing the crosstalk or the influence of the environmental variables” (paragraph [0075]; as taught by Haas).
Regarding claims 15-20, US 12064265 B2 teaches all the limitations of the claims except for the opaque region extending at a non perpendicular angle to a surface of the portion. However, Haas teaches the opaque region being at an acute angle to a surface of the portion (as shown in Figure 2, 10). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of US 12064265 B2, to have an angled opaque region, as taught by Haas, because this “leads to a region enlargement G′ without increasing the crosstalk or the influence of the environmental variables” (paragraph [0075]; as taught by Haas).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABID A MUSTANSIR whose telephone number is (408)918-7647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10 am to 6 pm Pacific Time.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at 571-272-7540. 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.
/ABID A MUSTANSIR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights