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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informality:
On line 3 of claim 6, “chose” should be “choose.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, the phrase “sampled into a sampled sensor signal, e.g. by coherent sampling, and the sampled sensor signal…” is being understood as if “, e.g.” were removed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by de Mersseman et al. (US 2017/0343671- cited by Applicant).
With respect to independent claim 1, de Mersseman discloses a proximity sensor system (Abstract and [0020]), comprising:
a light emitter and a driver circuit configured to drive the light emitter such that the light emitter emits a sequence of pulses towards an external target ([0020]-[0022], [0025], and Fig. 1)
a light detector operable to generate a time-dependent sensor signal which is indicative of light reflected off of the external target ([0020]-[0022]), and
a processing unit operable to convert the sensor signal to frequency-dependent converted sensor signal, wherein the converted sensor signal is a representation of the sensor signal in the frequency domain ([0020]-[0022], [0026], and Fig. 1).
With respect to independent claim 10, de Mersseman discloses a method of operating a proximity sensor system (Abstract and [0020]), comprising:
using a light emitter, emitting a sequence of pulses towards an external target ([0020]-[0022], [0025], and Fig. 1)
using a light detector, generating a time-dependent sensor signal, which is indicative of light reflected off of the external target ([0020]-[0022]), and
using a processing unit, converting the sensor signal into a representation in the frequency domain ([0020]-[0022], [0026], and Fig. 1).
With respect to depending claims 2, 3, and 11, de Mersseman discloses wherein the processing unit is operable to sample the time-dependent sensor signal into a sampled sensor signal and convert the sampled sensor signal into the converted sensor signal ([0021]), and wherein the processing unit is operable to sample the time-dependent sensor signal by means of coherent sampling ([0037]).
With respect to depending claims 4 and 12, de Mersseman discloses wherein the processing unit is operable to convert the sensor signal by means of a Fast Fourier Transformation or a Goertzel Fast Fourier Transformation ([0030]).
With respect to depending claims 5 and 13, de Mersseman discloses wherein the processing unit is operable to:
group samples of the converted sensor signal into a number of frequency bins ([0023] and [0030]), and
determine a proximity event and/or distance information associated with the external target based on samples of one or more frequency bins ([0043] and [0049]).
With respect to depending claim 6, which is dependent upon claim 5, and depending claim 14, which is dependent upon claim 13, de Messerman discloses wherein the processing unit is operable to:
choose a frequency bin from the number of frequency bins ([0023], [0030], and [0041]), and
determine the proximity event and/or distance information associated with the external target based on samples from the chosen frequency bin only ([0023], [0030], and [0041]).
With respect to depending claim 8, de Mersseman discloses further comprising an ambient light sensor ([0020]-[0022] and [0049]).
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.
Claims 7, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Mersseman et al. (US 2017/0343671- cited above).
With respect to depending claims 7 and 15, de Mersseman discloses wherein the processing unit is operable to:
adjust a proximity pulse frequency of the sequence of pulses to a value of the chosen frequency bin ([0020]-[0022] and [0049]), and
adjust the driver circuit to drive the light emitter to emit the sequence of pulses towards an external target with pulses having the adjust proximity pulse frequency ([0020]-[0022] and [0049]).
Although de Mersseman fails to expressly disclose wherein the interference is identified, e.g. determining a disturbance value of frequency bins and choosing a frequency bin which meets the disturbance criterion, the Office considers it standard and well known in the art when changing inter-pulse frequency to avoid interference includes identifying the interference, such as the manner instantly claimed, and as such, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider incorporating this application into the method disclosed by de Mersseman.
With respect to depending claim 9, de Mersseman discloses a system comprising a processing unit, a light detector, a driver circuit, and a light emitter (Abstract, [0020]-[0022], and Fig. 1). However, de Mersseman fails to expressly disclose wherein each component is “integrated into a common integrated circuit,” as instantly claimed. The Office considers it standard and well known in the art involving electrical components that they be integrated together into a common integrated circuit. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider combining each component into a common integrated circuit in order to minimize wiring and component connections, improve efficiency, and simplify the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Trattler et al. (US 2020/0178865) teaches a circuit arrangement for an optical monitoring system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVI T. SKAIST whose telephone number is (571)272-9348. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at (571) 272-4137. 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.
/AVI T SKAIST/Examiner, Art Unit 3674
/WILLIAM D HUTTON JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3674
Prosecution Insights