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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the user monitor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to change claim 6 to depend on claim 5.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5 – 7, 9 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US 2018/0054265 (hereinafter Lee) in view of Wooldridge et al. US 2012/0029947 (hereinafter Wooldridge).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches:
apparatus for automatically testing a mobile device, comprising:
a cabinet having an interior volume and at least one door (Fig. 1);
the interior volume of the cabinet houses a test chamber and a retention device into which a mobile device to be tested is positioned (Fig.1, [0016] - - test the telecommunication device 108);
wherein the cabinet has RF shielding such that when the at least one door is closed RF frequencies are blocked from the mobile device (Fig. 1, [0007] - - RF shielded robotic testing system);
a test computer having a processor and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing test software for testing the mobile device, wherein the mobile device is wirelessly connected to the test computer and has a single test application installed thereon and (Fig. 4, [0032]-[0034] - - the RF signal attenuation module 428 is configured to enable wireless communication of test signals to the telecommunication device108 during test, the RF signal attenuation module 428 is part of the controller 412) , in cooperation with the test software, is used to perform all of the plurality of tests.
But Lee does not explicitly teach:
at least one of the plurality of tests is being performed at the same time as another of the plurality of tests is being performed.
However, Wooldridge teaches:
at least one of the plurality of tests is being performed at the same time as another of the plurality of tests is being performed ([0019] - - testing the proximity sensor in the background when the ability to make a phone call is tested; [0021] - - conducting extended background testing);
Lee and Wooldridge are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to testing mobile device.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above apparatus, as taught by Lee, and incorporating performing tests in parallel, as taught by Wooldridge.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve testing, as suggested by Wooldridge ([0008]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lee and Wooldridge teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Lee further teaches: at least one antenna placed within the interior volume of the cabinet and operably coupled to the computer on the exterior of the cabinet, wherein the antenna allows for the computer to be wirelessly connected to the mobile device (Fig. 4, [0032] - - the antenna 116).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lee and Wooldridge teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Lee further teaches: a user monitor electronically connected to the test computer configured to provide testing data of the mobile device (Fig. 4, [0033] - - user terminal).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lee and Wooldridge teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Lee further teaches: the user monitor, in correlation with the computer and the test software, is configured to give a user direction to ensure proper use of the apparatus and testing of the mobile device (Fig. 4, [0033] - - user terminal display a user interface to enable the user to interact with the various modules of the platform manager).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lee and Wooldridge teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Lee further teaches: a robot located within the interior volume, wherein the robot is operably coupled with the retention device (Fig. 1, [0016] - - robot).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lee and Wooldridge teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Lee further teaches: the robot is configured to perform interaction and manipulation of the mobile device in cooperation with the test application and the test software during testing (Fig. 1, [0016] - - the robot cause a tip to input a command sequence into a touch screen of the device).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Lee and Wooldridge teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Lee further teaches: the interaction and manipulation of the mobile device performed by the robot comprise at least one of:
using a capacitive touch tip tool to make touchpoints on a screen of the mobile device ([0016] - - tip to input command sequence into a touch screen);
moving a camera coupled on the robot to a location for the camera to take pictures of the screen of the mobile device when the screen is turned to different colors by the test application ([0016] - - cameras to capture imagery of the testing of the telecommunication device);
moving a tag near the mobile device to activate a sensor of the mobile device;
plugging an audio connector into an audio port of the mobile device;
picking up a magnetic tool to check a sensor of the mobile device; or
pushing each physical button on the mobile device for functionality test ([0014] - - using tips to simulate human interaction, e.g. through buttons).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Lee and Wooldridge teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Lee further teaches:
the interaction and manipulation of the mobile device is performed by the robot while at least one test process is performed to test internal components and/or feature performances of the mobile device ([0016] - - to validate various functionalities of the device); and
the mobile device is at least one of; a smartphone, a smart watch, or a tablet (Fig. 1, [0016] - - the device under test can initiate a phone call, thus it is a smartphone).
Claims 3, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US 2018/0054265 (hereinafter Lee) in view of Wooldridge et al. US 2012/0029947 (hereinafter Wooldridge) and further in view of Pudney et al. US 2011/0140887 (hereinafter Pudney).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lee and Wooldridge teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Lee and Wooldridge does not explicitly teach:
a magnetic door lock which is configured to secure the at least one door closed.
However, Pudney teaches:
a magnetic door lock which is configured to secure the at least one door closed ([0022] - - computer controlled magnetic lock).
Lee and Pudney are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to a chamber.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above apparatus, as taught by the combination of Lee and Wooldridge, and incorporating a magnetic lock, as taught by Pudney.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve security, as suggested by Pudney ([0022]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lee, Wooldridge and Pudney teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Lee further teaches: the door lock is configured to open the at least one door on a command from the computer and testing software ([0023] - - the locking mechanism is automatically engaged from a user terminal).
Pudney further teaches: a magnetic door lock ([0022]).
Lee, Wooldridge and Pudney are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Claims 8, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US 2018/0054265 (hereinafter Lee) in view of Wooldridge et al. US 2012/0029947 (hereinafter Wooldridge) and further in view of DIPERNA et al. US 2016/0187876 (hereinafter DIPERNA).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lee and Wooldridge teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Lee and Wooldridge does not explicitly teach:
the robot is a 7-axis robotic system having a robot arm; and the robot arm has 4 degrees of freedom in the three-dimensional space.
However, DIPERNA teaches:
the robot is a 7-axis robotic system having a robot arm ([0086], [0087] - - the plate can move in x-y direction (2 axis) the plate can rotate between a portrait and landscape rotation (1 axis); the plate can tilt in theta-x and theta-y directions (2 axis); the stylus moves in all three x, y ,z direction (3 axis); thus the robotic system has more than 7 axis); and
the robot arm has 4 degrees of freedom in the three-dimensional space ([0086],[0087] - - the plate is interpreted as a robot arm; the plate can move in x-y direction (2 axis) the plate can rotate between a portrait and landscape rotation (1 axis); the plate can tilt in theta-x and theta-y directions (2 axis); thus the plate has 4 degrees of freedom).
Lee, Williams and DIPERNA are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to testing mobile devices.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above apparatus, as taught by the combination of Lee and Wooldridge, and incorporating a 7-axis robot, as taught by DIPERNA.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve automated tester, as suggested by DIPERNA ([0012]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lee and Wooldridge teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Lee and Wooldridge does not explicitly teach:
a position calibration tool coupled to the robot and configured for determining positions of interfaces and physical buttons of the mobile device, based on positions of points on the retention device and calibration software..
However, DIPERNA teaches:
a position calibration tool coupled to the robot and configured for determining positions of interfaces and physical buttons of the mobile device, based on positions of points on the retention device and calibration software ([0109]-[0111] - - perform an x-y calibration on the phone, the calibration information is used by the robotics to acuate buttons on the smart device).
Lee, Williams and DIPERNA are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to testing mobile devices.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above apparatus, as taught by the combination of Lee and Wooldridge, and incorporating a position calibration tool, as taught by DIPERNA.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve automated tester, as suggested by DIPERNA ([0012]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUHUI R PAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/YUHUI R PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights