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 Objections
Claim 21 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 23. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). It should be noted that claims 21 and 23 differ only in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness. In this case, since the bodies of claims 21 and 23 do not depend on the preamble for completeness and are identical to each other, it is considered that claims 21 and 23 are so close in content that they both cover the same thing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vampola et al (US 2020/0348790).
Regarding claim 1, Vampola et al shows in Figs.7-8 the following elements of applicant’s claim: a housing (22); an ambient light sensor (40) in the housing; a cover layer (62) that at least partially overlaps the ambient light sensor (Fig.7); and an angular-response controller (64, 66; 72, 78) between the cover layer and the ambient light sensor, wherein the angular-response controller comprises first and second light modulator layers (col.8, line 10-col.9, line 12) with patterned regions of adjustable transparency.
Claim(s) 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meijer et al (US 8,619,249).
Regarding claims 21 and 23, as far as the claim is understood, Meijer et al shows in Figs.5a-5b the following elements of applicant’s claim: an ambient light sensor (110); a first light modulator layer (530) that overlaps the ambient light sensor, wherein the first light modulator layer comprises first transparent portions and first opaque portions; and a second light modulator layer (540) interposed between the first light modulator layer (530) and the ambient light sensor (110), wherein the second light modulator layer comprises second transparent portions and the second opaque portions, and wherein the first and second light modulator layers are configured to be switched between a first mode in which on-axis light reaches the ambient light sensor and off-axis light is blocked, and a second mode in which the off-axis light reaches the ambient light sensor and the on-axis light is blocked (col.7, line 37-col.8, line 53; Figs.5a-5b).
Regarding claim 22, the limitations therein are shown in Figs.5a-5b of Meijer et al.
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.
Claim(s) 2-20 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vampola et al (US 2020/0348790) in view of Meijer et al (US 8,619,249).
Regarding claim 2, while Vampola et al discloses the use of first and second modulator layers (Figs.7-8; pixelated liquid crystal light modulators: 64, 66, 72, 78), it doesn’t specifically mention the feature of switching between a first mode and a second mode. However, such feature is known in the art as disclosed by Meijer et al (Figs.5a-5b; col.7, line 37-col.8, line 53) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Meijer et al in the device of Vampola et al in view of the desire to make improvement by utilizing the specific scheme disclosed by Meijer et al resulting in achieving the particular desired performance.
Regarding claims 3-4, the limitations therein are disclosed in col.7, line 37-col.8, line 53 of Meijer et al (Figs.5a-5b).
Regarding claim 5, Vampola et al discloses the use of an accelerometer in an electronic device (col.3, lines 8-9; Fig.1). It should be noted that an accelerometer is used for detecting a motion of an object.
Regarding claims 6 and 12, the limitations therein are disclosed in col.6, lines 11-41 of Vampola et al.
Regarding claims 7, 9, 11 and 14, the specific configuration and elements utilized in the modified device of Vampola et al would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art depending on the needs of particular application and involving only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations therein are disclosed in col.3, lines 44-49 of Vampola et al.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations therein are disclosed in col.3, lines 12-37 of Vampola et al.
Regarding claim 13, although the modified device of Vampola et al does not specifically mention the use of an orientation sensor, Vampola discloses the use of many different sensors (col.3, lines 7-13). The specific type of a sensor utilized would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of meeting different design requirements.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations therein are disclosed in col.7, line 37-col.8, line 53 of Meijer et al.
Regarding claim 16, the limitations therein are disclosed in col.3, lines 25-49 of Vampola et al.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations therein are disclosed in col.6, lines 18-31 of Vampola et al.
Regarding claims 18-19, the limitations therein are disclosed in col.8, lines 14-43 of Vampola et al (Meijer et al; col.7, line 37-col.8, line 53).
Regarding claim 20, the limitations therein are disclosed in col.7, lines 40-47 of Meijer et al.
Regarding claim 23, as far as the claim is understood, while Vampola et al discloses an electronic device comprising, an ambient light sensor (40), a first modulator layer and a second modulator layer (Figs.7-8; pixelated liquid crystal light modulators: 64, 66, 72, 78), it doesn’t specifically mention the feature of switching between a first mode and a second mode. However, such feature is known in the art as disclosed by Meijer et al (Figs.5a-5b; col.7, line 37-col.8, line 53) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Meijer et al in the device of Vampola et al in view of the desire to make improvement by utilizing the specific scheme disclosed by Meijer et al resulting in achieving the particular desired performance.
Regarding claim 24, Vampola et al discloses the use of an accelerometer in an electronic device (col.3, lines 8-9; Fig.1). It should be noted that an accelerometer is used for detecting a motion of an object.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rai Kurlethimar et al (US 11,442,543 B1) is cited for disclosing an electronic device utilizing a motion sensor and an orientation sensor (col.4, line 67; Fig.1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN K PYO whose telephone number is (571)272-2445. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30 PM.
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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/KEVIN K PYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878