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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2-24-2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1, 2, 4-9, 11-17, & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shou et al (PGPub 2022/0244041) (Shou) in view of Jianping et al (PGPub 2006/0072102) (Jianping)
Regarding Claims 1 & 20, Shou discloses a self-mixing interferometry sensor module (Fig. 1), comprising:
a single light emitter (112) configured to:
emit coherent electromagnetic radiation out of the sensor module (Paragraph 31); and
undergo self-mixing interference, SMI, caused by reflections of the emitted electromagnetic radiation from an object (104) outside the sensor module (Paragraph 33); and
a first processor coupled to the light emitter and configured to:
detect a change in an electrical property of the light emitter caused by the SMI (Paragraph 49). The frequency of the power consumed by the VCSEL meets this limitation;
determine from the detected change a movement of the object outside the sensor module (Paragraphs 49 & 51); and
generate an output signal that comprises information of the determined movement (Paragraph 63);
Shou fails to explicitly disclose wherein a direction and an orientation of the movement along all three motion principle axes of the object is determined;
However, Jianping discloses using a single light emitter (31) wherein a direction and an orientation of the movement along all three motion principle axes of the object is determined (Paragraph 58);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shou with wherein a direction and an orientation of the movement along all three motion principle axes of the object is determined because using a single light emitter to monitor movement along all three motion principle axes of the object allows for a less costly device since it normally would take at least two and further, monitoring all three principle axes allows for a fuller picture of the movement of the object which can be useful in touch screen applications which require monitoring all three of those direction to function.
The method of Claim 20 is also met by the disclosure.
Regarding Claim 2, Shou as modified by Jianping discloses the aforementioned. Further, Shou discloses wherein the light emitter (112) is a vertical cavity surface emitting laser, VCSEL, diode (Fig. 1, Paragraph 30).
Regarding Claim 4, Shou as modified by Jianping discloses the aforementioned. Further, Shou discloses wherein the electronic control unit is further configured to:
determine from the detected change a speed of the movement; and generate the output signal that comprises information of the determined speed (Paragraph 29). Since velocity is a vector unit that is defined as speed and the direction of movement this implies that the device is for detecting the change in speed.
Regarding Claim 5, Shou as modified by Jianping discloses the aforementioned. Further, Shou discloses wherein the electronic control unit is further configured to:
determine from the detected change a direction of the movement along a movement axis; and generate the output signal that comprises information of the determined direction (Paragraph 87). By monitoring movement in regards to the axes one is also monitoring the change in movement;
Regarding Claim 6, Shou as modified by Jianping discloses the aforementioned. Further, Shou discloses wherein the electronic control unit is further configured to determine from the detected change an orientation of the movement with respect to a first axis and a second axis; and generate the output signal that comprises information of the determined orientation (Paragraph 87). Again, the applicant appears to be defining the orientation of movement as the direction of movement with regard to the principle axes (X, Y, Z) thus the examiner finds this limitation to be met since the art is discussing the movement in regards to these axes.
Regarding Claim 7, Shou as modified by Jianping discloses the aforementioned. Further, Shou discloses wherein the electronic control unit is configured to determine from the detected change a movement of a finger of a user outside the sensor module. (Paragraph 55, Figs. 6A-6D).
Regarding Claim 8, Shou as modified by Jianping discloses the aforementioned. Further, Shou discloses wherein the electronic control unit is further configured to identify from the detected change a finger of the user; and generate the output signal that comprises information of the identified finger (Paragraph 91).
Regarding Claim 9, Shou as modified by Jianping discloses the aforementioned. Further, Shou discloses a transmissive cover (608) that is arranged distant from the light emitter (606) in an emission direction of the light emitter wherein the transmissive cover serves as a surface for the movement of the object (Paragraph 93).
Regarding Claim 11, Shou as modified by Jianping discloses the aforementioned. Further, Shou discloses an optical lens (116) arranged distant from the light emitter in an emission direction of the light emitter. (Fig. 1, Paragraph 56).
Regarding Claim 12, Shou as modified by Jianping discloses the aforementioned. Further, Shou discloses wherein the processing unit is configured to:
receive the output signal from the sensor module (Paragraph 90);
extract the information of the determined movement of the object from the output signal (Paragraph 90);
select a feature of the electronic device; and control the feature based on the information (Paragraph 91). Performing a function based upon a user’s input would meet this limitation.
Regarding Claim 13, as modified by Jianping Shou discloses the aforementioned. Further, Shou discloses wherein the processing unit is further configured to select the feature based on the extracted information (Paragraph 91). Deciding what function to perform based upon the distance from the input component meets this limitation.
Regarding Claim 14, Shou as modified by Jianping discloses the aforementioned. Further, Shou discloses wherein the processing unit is further configured to:
compare the information to a first and a second movement pattern; select and control the feature if the information matches the first movement pattern; and select and control a further feature of the electronic device if the information matches the second movement pattern (Paragraph 91). Performing the first, second, or third function as determine by the movement of the users finger as compared to the input component meets this limitation.
Regarding Claim 15, Shou as modified by Jianping discloses the aforementioned. Further, Shou discloses wherein the processing unit is further configured to:
extract from the output signal a determined direction of movement; and (control the feature depending on the direction (Paragraph 91).
Regarding Claim 16, Shou as modified by Jianping discloses the aforementioned. Further, Shou discloses wherein the processing unit is further configured to:
extract from the output signal a determined speed of movement; and control the feature depending on the speed (Paragraph 91). As stated the measured velocity can be used to determine the function performed thus the speed of movement.
Regarding Claim 17, Shou discloses the aforementioned. Further, Shou discloses wherein the processing unit is further configured to:
extract the information of the determined movement of a user's finger (Paragraph 90) from the output signal;
extract information of an identified finger of the user from the output signal (Paragraph 91). The fingers relation to the input component is the information; and
select and control the feature depending on the identified finger and the determined movement. (Paragraph 91).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shou in view of Jianping and further in view of Lim et al (Lim et al., "Displacement and Distance Measurement using the Change in Junction Voltage Across a Laser Diode due to the Self-Mixing Effect", Proceedings of SPIE, Vol. 6038, December 28, 2005, pp. 603810-1-603810-10 (10 pages), cited in NPL Nos. 1 and 2.) (Lim).
Regarding Claim 3, Shou as modified by Jianping discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the electronic control unit is configured to detect a change in a junction voltage of the light emitter and determine from the change in junction voltage the movement of the object;
However, Lim teaches wherein the electronic control unit is configured to detect a change in a junction voltage of the light emitter and determine from the change in junction voltage the movement of the object (Title, Abstract, Section 5 Results and Analysis);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shou as modified by Jianping with wherein the electronic control unit is configured to detect a change in a junction voltage of the light emitter and determine from the change in junction voltage the movement of the object because such a method is functionally equivalent to that discussed in Shou and would offer such benefits as a relatively in expensive and less complex method for monitoring the SMI to derive the information needed.
Claim(s) 18 & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shou in view of Jianping and further in view of McCord (PGPub 2020/0374620) (McCord).
Regarding Claim 18, Shou as modified by Jianping discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose further comprising a speaker operable to generate sound, wherein the feature corresponds to a volume of the sound generated by the speaker, and; and- the processing unit is configured to increase or decrease the volume depending on a direction of the detected movement;
However, McCord teaches using a SMI for characterizing user input comprising a speaker operable to generate sound, wherein the feature corresponds to a volume of the sound generated by the speaker, and; and- the processing unit is configured to increase or decrease the volume depending on a direction of the detected movement (Paragraphs 193 & 213);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shou as modified by Jianping with a speaker operable to generate sound, wherein the feature corresponds to a volume of the sound generated by the speaker, and; and- the processing unit is configured to increase or decrease the volume depending on a direction of the detected movement because volume control on a device would be one of many such functions that it would be common sense to control with a gesture input device such as this.
Regarding Claim 19, Shou as modified by Jianping discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose further including memory to store a playlist of media items, wherein the feature corresponds to selecting a next or previous media item in the playlist; and the processing unit is configured to select the next or the previous media item in the memory depending on a direction of the detected movement;
However, McCord teaches memory to store a playlist of media items (Paragraph 212). The audio stream would be equivalent to a playlist of media items;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shou as modified by Jianping with memory to store a playlist of media items because storing a media playlist allows for customizing one’s own listening experience which improves the user experience;
Shou as modified by Jianping and McCord fails to explicitly disclose wherein the feature corresponds to selecting a next or previous media item in the playlist; and the processing unit is configured to select the next or the previous media item in the memory depending on a direction of the detected movement;
However, the examiner gives official notice this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shou as modified by Jianping and McCord with wherein the feature corresponds to selecting a next or previous media item in the playlist; and the processing unit is configured to select the next or the previous media item in the memory depending on a direction of the detected movement because recognizing the pressing of the play next button on a screen of an audio device with the claimed input mechanism would be common sense as would any feature such digital devices commonly perform.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Shou in view of Jianping and further in view of Holenarsipur (PGPub 2019/0317454) (Holenarsipur)
Regarding Claims 21, Shou discloses a self-mixing interferometry sensor module (Fig. 1), comprising:
a single light emitter (112) configured to:
emit coherent electromagnetic radiation out of the sensor module (Paragraph 31); and
undergo self-mixing interference, SMI, caused by reflections of the emitted electromagnetic radiation from an object (104) outside the sensor module (Paragraph 33); and
a first processor coupled to the light emitter and configured to:
detect a change in an electrical property of the light emitter caused by the SMI (Paragraph 49). The frequency of the power consumed by the VCSEL meets this limitation;
determine from the detected change a movement of the object outside the sensor module (Paragraphs 49 & 51); and
generate an output signal that comprises information of the determined movement (Paragraph 63);
Shou fails to explicitly disclose wherein a direction and an orientation of the movement along all three motion principle axes of the object is determined; and the single light emitter is configured to: emit the coherent electromagnetic radiation in a pulsed mode;
However, Jianping discloses using a single light emitter (31) wherein a direction and an orientation of the movement along all three motion principle axes of the object is determined (Paragraph 58);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shou with wherein a direction and an orientation of the movement along all three motion principle axes of the object is determined because using a single light emitter to monitor movement along all three motion principle axes of the object allows for a less costly device since it normally would take at least two and further, monitoring all three principle axes allows for a fuller picture of the movement of the object which can be useful in touch screen applications which require monitoring all three of those direction to function;
Shou as modified by Jianping still fails to explicitly disclose the single light emitter is configured to: emit the coherent electromagnetic radiation in a pulsed mode;
However, Holenarsipur discloses a SMI (Fig. 4, Paragraph 55) with a single light emitter is configured to: emit the coherent electromagnetic radiation in a pulsed mode (Paragraph 51);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shou as modified by Jianping with the single light emitter is configured to: emit the coherent electromagnetic radiation in a pulsed mode because it’s functionally equivalent to continuously emitting light and offers such advantages as conserving power.
Conclusion
With regards to Claims 1-20. Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 6-9-2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
With regards to Claim 21. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHON COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-1323. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-7pm.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/JONATHON COOK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 June 9, 2026
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights