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 2 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.
As to claim 2: The claim recites in part that “the magnetic actuator comprises the magnet and the coil wrapped around the magnet” but it is unclear from the context of the claim how a magnet may be wrapped around itself. Applicant’s as-filed specification ¶ 85 discloses that “In one or more implementations, the magnetic actuator may be a magnet and a coil wrapped around the magnet that are disposed in opening 208.” but because there is no further elucidating information describing how such a magnet may be wrapped around itself, the scope of the claim is still unclear. Applicant’s as-filed specification ¶ 70 does disclose in part “the primary winding 822 may transform into a large self-wrapped metal piece, in one or more implementations.” and the as-filed specification ¶ 92 further discloses “the magnetic actuator comprises a primary winding and a secondary winding wrapped around a magnet” but neither of these additional portions of Applicant’s as-filed specification appear to either explicitly disclose or even suggest how a magnet of a magnetic actuator may be considered to wrap around itself, such as recited in the instant claim.
Because the scope of the claim could not be determined at this time for the above noted reasons, a proper and complete prior art search for the claimed subject matter of claim 2 could not be carried out at this time. The examiner recommends responding to this office action by explaining how Applicant believe the scope of the claim to be definite, preferably by providing evidence from Applicant’s disclosure, and/or amending the claim to obviate the above noted issues. Should Applicant’s reply overcome the instant rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), said rejection will be withdrawn and a prior art search of the claimed subject matter of claim 2 would be carried out at that time.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kent et al. US PG-PUB 2019/0079464 A1 (hereafter Kent) in view of Bergsneider et al. US PG-PUB 2008/0281250 A1 (hereafter Bergsneider).
As to claim 1: Kent teaches an electronic device (100; see fig. 1 and ¶ 17), comprising:
a housing (106; see fig. 2 and ¶ 24) having an opening (108; see fig. 2 and ¶ 24 as well as further details in ¶ 61);
a pressure sensor (102; see fig. 1 and ¶ 17 as well as further details in ¶ 54) disposed within a cavity adjacent to the opening and exposed to an environment external to the housing via the opening (see fig. 2 and ¶ 24 regarding the pressure sensor 102 being disposed adjacent to an opening 108 and which exposes the sensor to the external environment); and
processing circuitry (128; see ¶ 18) configured to:
detect that the opening is occluded (see ¶ 61).
Kent does not explicitly teach:
a magnetic actuator associated with the pressure sensor; and
processing circuitry configured to:
activate, when a liquid occlusion is detected, the magnetic actuator by applying an electrical current to a coil in the magnetic actuator; and
eject the liquid occlusion in the opening by generating a mechanical motion with a magnet in the magnetic actuator based on the applied electrical current to the coil.
However, Bergsneider teaches:
a magnetic actuator associated with a pressure sensor (not labeled but see ¶ 37, 46, and 56 regarding occlusion cleared by a magnetic actuator and associated with a pressure sensor); and
processing circuitry configured to:
activate, when a liquid occlusion is detected, the magnetic actuator by applying an electrical current to a coil in the magnetic actuator (see ¶ 37 and 48); and
eject the liquid occlusion by generating a mechanical motion with a magnet in the magnetic actuator based on the applied electrical current to the coil (see ¶ 48 and 52).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kent’s electronic device such that it includes a magnetic actuator associated with the pressure sensor; and its processing circuitry is configured to activate, when a liquid occlusion is detected, the magnetic actuator by applying an electrical current to a coil in the magnetic actuator; and eject the liquid occlusion in the opening by generating a mechanical motion with a magnet in the magnetic actuator based on the applied electrical current to the coil because occluded fluid may then be remotely cleared from an orifice in a device via magnetic means and this would reduce mechanical wear and tear, such as suggested in ¶ 54 of and 55 of Bergsneider and also allow for the device to utilize well known MEMS technology which is a cost effective fabrication technique and thus can leverage economies of scale, such as further suggested in ¶ 57 of Bergsneider and thus would minimize production cost of Kent’s device.
As to claim 9: Kent as modified by Bergsneider teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry (128 of Kent) includes a sensing device (see ¶ 23 of Kent) coupled to the magnetic actuator (see ¶ 44 of Bergsneider regarding the disclosed magnetic actuator) and is configured to detect the liquid occlusion (see ¶ 28 and 31 of Kent).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kent et al. US PG-PUB 2019/0079464 A1 (hereafter Kent) in view of Bergsneider et al. US PG-PUB 2008/0281250 A1 (hereafter Bergsneider) as applied above, and further in view of Garibaldi et al. US Pat 6,401,723 B1 (hereafter Garibaldi).
As to claim 3: Kent as modified by Bergsneider teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including a coil (implicit due to the magnetic field such as disclosed in ¶ 54 and 55 of Bergsneider) coupled to the magnet (see ¶ 54 and 55 of Bergsneider) and a housing (106 of Kent; see fig. 2 and ¶ 24), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the coil is embedded within a lead structure that is coupled to the magnet and the housing, wherein the lead structure is wrapped around the magnet.
However, Garibaldi teaches a coil embedded within a structure that is coupled to a magnet and a housing (see col. 4, lines 8-12 regarding coil 26 embedded within a structure 24 of a magnetic device 20 with a wall that is considered to be a housing), wherein the structure is wrapped around the magnet (see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Kent such that the coil is embedded within a lead structure that is coupled to the magnet and the housing, wherein the lead structure is wrapped around the magnet because such embedding protects coil components from being exposed to the external environment and thus can serve to improve longevity by preventing damage thereto. Furthermore, by wrapping the structure around the magnet, the combined configuration of the coil, structure, magnet, and housing size is minimized and thus can be applied to small devices and thus contributes to increased utility of Kent’s device at least by virtue of reducing its physical footprint size and weight.
As to claim 4: Kent as modified by Bergsneider teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including a coil (implicit due to the magnetic field such as disclosed in ¶ 54 and 55 of Bergsneider) coupled to the magnet (see ¶ 54 and 55 of Bergsneider) and a housing (106 of Kent; see fig. 2 and ¶ 24), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the coil is arranged external to a lead structure and the coil is wrapped around the lead structure and the magnet.
However, Garibaldi teaches a coil being arranged external to a structure and the coil is wrapped around the structure and the magnet (see col. 5, lines 55-59 regarding coils, such as those disclosed previously in col. 4, lines 8-12, that may be arranged external to a structure such as depicted in fig. 8, and which is wrapped around the structure and a magnet).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Kent such that the coil is arranged external to a lead structure and the coil is wrapped around the lead structure and the magnet because such a construction can be utilized when said coils are being utilized to conduct heat proximally away from the coils, such as suggested in col. 5, lines 55-59 of Garibaldi. Accordingly, such a structure may be useful when the coils are disposed external to another interior structure of Kent when heat management is a primary concern and the coils may still be protected by coating them in a thermally insulating polymer such as also suggested in col. 5, lines 57-59 of Garibaldi.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kent et al. US PG-PUB 2019/0079464 A1 (hereafter Kent) in view of Bergsneider et al. US PG-PUB 2008/0281250 A1 (hereafter Bergsneider) as applied above, and further in view of Macneil et al. US PG-PUB 2019/0086284 A1 (hereafter Macneil) and Arndt et al. US PG-PUB 2020/0064215 A1 (hereafter Arndt).
As to claim 7: Kent as modified by Bergsneider teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including a magnet (not labeled but see ¶ 48 and 52 of Bergsneider regarding motion due to a magnetic field which necessitates a magnet), an opening (108 of Kent), and processing circuitry (128 of Kent) that is configured to detect liquid occlusion (see ¶ 19 of Kent), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the magnet is coupled to a particulate protection element having a plurality of apertures, wherein the particulate protection element is arranged across the opening.
However, Macneil teaches a particulate protection element (not labeled but see the cover disclosed in ¶ 47) having a plurality of apertures (not explicitly depicted but see ¶ 47 regarding openings that must necessarily be present in order to be air permeable), wherein the particulate protection element is arranged across an opening (see ¶ 47 regarding the cover spanning port 211).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kent such that the magnet is coupled to a particulate protection element having a plurality of apertures, wherein the particulate protection element is arranged across the opening because such a construction protects internal electronics components, especially such as pressure sensing elements and circuitry thereof, such as suggested in ¶ 46 of Macneil. In particular, this design allows for liquid to largely be prevented from entering a piece of electronics while still allowing for air to pass therethrough in order to carry out pressure measurements, such as suggested in ¶ 46-47 of Macneil and would thus improve the flexibility and operation of Kent’s device while simultaneously preventing damage thereto.
Kent also does not explicitly teach:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to detect the liquid occlusion in one or more apertures of the plurality of apertures.
However, Arndt teaches processing circuitry (112; see ¶ 15) that is configured to detect liquid occlusion (see ¶ 15 regarding detection of water that is detected and such water can be occlusion as previously noted in ¶ 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kent such that the processing circuitry is further configured to detect the liquid occlusion in one or more apertures of the plurality of apertures because water may enter sensitive electronics in a device which could potentially damage the internal components thereof and the detection of water therein can allow for remedial measures to be taken, such as suggested in Arndt ¶ 12, which can serve to improve the longevity of Kent’s device by preventing water damage thereto.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kent et al. US PG-PUB 2019/0079464 A1 (hereafter Kent) in view of Bergsneider et al. US PG-PUB 2008/0281250 A1 (hereafter Bergsneider) as applied above, and further in view of Arndt et al. US PG-PUB 2020/0064215 A1 (hereafter Arndt) and Garibaldi et al. US Pat 6,401,723 B1 (hereafter Garibaldi).
As to claim 8: Kent as modified by Bergsneider teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including a magnet (not labeled but see ¶ 48 and 52 of Bergsneider regarding motion due to a magnetic field which necessitates a magnet), a lead structure and a housing (the internal and external components of Kent’s device such as depicted in figs. 2 and 3), and a coil (see the coil disclosed suggested in Bergsneider ¶ 39 regarding the generation of an external AC magnetic field), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the magnet is arranged as a protective cap mounted on a cylinder structure coupled between a lead structure and the housing.
However, Arndt teaches a protective cap (104; see fig. 1) mounted on a cylinder structure (see fig. 2 regarding the vertically depicted housing components adjacent the cap 104) coupled between a structure and a housing (see fig. 2 regarding the position of the cap 104 between a structure; i.e. the vertical components to which the cap are connected, and the housing that forms the exterior of the depicted device).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kent’s device such that the magnet is arranged as a protective cap mounted on a cylinder structure coupled between a lead structure and the housing because such a construction can protect sensitive electronics components within a device especially regarding potential damage due to water ingress, such as suggested in ¶ 15 of Arndt, and therefore such a construction can extend the longevity of Kent’s device while also detecting potential damage due to the presence of water such as also suggested in Arndt ¶ 15.
Kent also does not explicitly teach:
wherein the coil is external to the lead structure and the coil is wrapped around the lead structure.
However, Garibaldi teaches a coil being arranged external to a structure and the coil is wrapped around the structure (see col. 5, lines 55-59 regarding coils, such as those disclosed previously in col. 4, lines 8-12, that may be arranged external to a structure such as depicted in fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Kent such that the coil is arranged external to a lead structure and the coil is wrapped around the lead structure because such a construction can be utilized when said coils are being utilized to conduct heat proximally away from the coils, such as suggested in col. 5, lines 55-59 of Garibaldi. Accordingly, such a structure may be useful when the coils are disposed external to another interior structure of Kent when heat management is a primary concern and the coils may still be protected by coating them in a thermally insulating polymer such as also suggested in col. 5, lines 57-59 of Garibaldi.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kent et al. US PG-PUB 2019/0079464 A1 (hereafter Kent) in view of Bergsneider et al. US PG-PUB 2008/0281250 A1 (hereafter Bergsneider) as applied above, and further in view of Pessina et al. US PG-PUB 2017/0263366 A1 (hereafter Pessina).
As to claim 11: Kent as modified by Bergsneider teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including processing circuitry (128 of Kent), a magnetic actuator (not labeled but see Bergsneider ¶ 37 and ¶ 46), and a coil (see the coil disclosed suggested in Bergsneider ¶ 39 regarding the generation of an external AC magnetic field), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the processing circuitry includes a driver coupled to the magnetic actuator and is configured to apply the electrical current to the coil.
However, Pessina teaches processing circuitry (3; see ¶ 52) that includes a driver coupled to a magnetic actuator and is configured to apply electrical current to a coil (see ¶ 42 and 52).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kent’s processing circuitry to include a driver coupled to the magnetic actuator and be configured to apply the electrical current to the coil because such a construction is an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of allowing an electromagnetic actuator to interact with switching apparatuses in order to carry out various functions, such as suggested in ¶ 47 of Pessina, and can thus allow Kent’s device to interact with a number of mechanical systems when utilized in an appropriate setting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 10, and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 5: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a lead structure that includes a spring structure configured to return the magnet to an initial position following the mechanical motion, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claims 1 and 4.
Although Bergsneider teaches that a magnet may be returned to an initial position following mechanical motion (see, for example, Bergsneider ¶ 46 and 47), there does not appear to be any disclosure, teaching, suggestion, or motivation regarding a lead structure that includes a spring structure that is configured to return the magnet to an initial position following the mechanical motion, such as required by the limitations of claim 5.
As to claim 6: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan wherein the magnet is arranged in a gap formed between a lead structure and the housing, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claim 1.
As to claim 10: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan wherein the magnetic actuator includes another coil electrically separate from the coil that is coupled to the sensing device (emphasis added), wherein the sensing device is configured to measure a change in capacitance between the coil and the other coil, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claims 1 and 9.
In particular, while the prior art suggests the pressure sensing elements being coupled to a capacitive circuit (see Kent ¶ 17) and Arndt teaches measuring a capacitance between electrodes related to the presence of water (see Arndt ¶ 15), there is no disclosure, teaching, or suggestion in Kent, Arndt, or the other cited prior art of record that renders obvious the magnetic actuator including another coil that is electrically separate from the coil and that is specifically coupled to the sensing device wherein the sensing device is configured to measured a change in capacitance between the coil and the other coil, all of which is required by the limitations of claim 10.
As to claim 12: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan wherein the processing circuitry includes a switch configured to initiate sensing between a first coil and a second coil in the magnetic actuator based on a first control signal value, wherein the switch is further configured to activate the magnetic actuator by passing the electrical current to the first coil based on a second control signal value (emphasis added), when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claim 1.
Claims 13-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As to claim 13: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan an apparatus comprising a voltage driver coupled to a magnetic actuator and configured to apply, when the liquid occlusion is detected (emphasis added), an electrical current to the magnetic actuator and causing the magnetic actuator to generate a motion with a repulsive force (emphasis added) to expel the liquid occlusion in the one or more apertures of the particulate protection element, when considered in combination with the other limitations recited in the instant claim.
Although the prior art of record discloses or teaches various features of the claim, such as a housing with an opening (106 of Kent; see fig. 2 and ¶ 24) having an opening (108 of Kent; see fig. 2 and ¶ 24 as well as further details in ¶ 61), a particulate protection element disposed within an opening (see Macneil ¶ 47 regarding the cover spanning port 211), a pressure sensor disposed within a cavity adjacent to an opening and exposed to an environment external to the housing via the opening (102 of Kent; see fig. 1 and ¶ 17 and ¶ 54 as well as further details in ¶ 24 regarding the pressure sensor 102 being disposed adjacent to an opening 108 and which exposes the sensor to the external environment), a magnetic actuator coupled to a pressure sensor (see ¶ 44 of Bergsneider), and a sensing device coupled to the magnetic actuator and configured to detect a liquid occlusion in one or more apertures of the particulate protection element (see ¶ 28 and 31 of Kent), but there is no disclosure or suggestion available in the prior that renders obvious to the skilled artisan the above noted underlined and bolded features; i.e. a voltage driver coupled to a magnetic actuator and configured to apply, when the liquid occlusion is detected and an electrical current to the magnetic actuator and causing the magnetic actuator to generate a motion with a repulsive force to expel the liquid occlusion in the one or more apertures of the particulate protection element, as required in the limitations of the instant claim.
As to claims 14-19: Each of said claims depends ultimately from claim 13 and accordingly each is indicated allowable over the cited prior art of record at least by virtue of their respective dependencies upon an allowable independent claim.
As to claim 20: The claim is drawn to a smart watch and recites limitations largely similar to claim 13 above as well as limitations regarding a switch coupled to a primary winding and a secondary winding, a sensing device configured to measure a change in capacitance between the primary and secondary winding to detect a liquid volume, and a voltage driver coupled to the primary winding via the switch and which is configured to apply an electrical current to the primary winding to generate a motion with the magnet and displace at least a portion of the liquid volume inside the cavity by causing a repulsive force with the generated motion and accordingly is also indicated allowable over the cited prior art of record for reasons similar to claim 13 as outlined previously above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.T..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
