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 .
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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in France on 06 December 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 18 November 2024 by the applicant has been considered and is included in the file.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
These claims include the limitation “in the second state, apply to the weighting coefficient a second value…”, which while not indefinite raises question about whether the weighting coefficient has a second value, or if the weighting coefficient has an additional value applied to it. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as “in the second state, where the weighting coefficient has a second value…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “12” has been used to designate both “a display screen” (such as in [0039] – [0040]) and “a wall” (such as in [0084] – [0090]), and additionally uses both reference characters “12” and “130” to refer to “a wall” in [0084] – [0090], and “130” to refer to a “capping wall” in [0039] – [0040]. While it is understood based on the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) that a wall may encompass a display screen, using the mixture of reference characters and names within the specification and drawings can lead to confusion.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because of what appears to be a minor disagreement between Fig. 3 and [0039], where [0069] states that "311" and "321" refer to the 6-sample data, while "312" and "322" are for the 30-sample data, while the legend for Fig. 3 appears to state the opposite. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of its undue length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0051] includes a typographical error where it refers to “DECTECT”, instead of “DETECT”.
Paragraph [0054] includes a typographical error where it reads “signal s
S
N
…”, as it appears to have an extra space between signal and ‘s’.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Claims 1 and 12 both include the limitation “based on weighting, with a weighting coefficient, the first signal differently from the second signal”. It is not understood, as written in the claim, how a singular weighting coefficient may apply different values to a first and a second signal. Based on the BRI and explanation within the specification (such as in [0071]), this limitation will be interpreted to read as ‘based on weighting, wherein the first signal is weighted differently from the second signal with a first weighting coefficient applied to either the first or second signal’.
Claims 2-11 and 13-20 are similarly rejected as being dependent upon claims 1 and 12, respectively.
Regarding claims 3 and 17, the claim as written is indefinite as it is unclear to what, exactly, is being weighted by the weighting coefficient. While it is clear that the second signal is subtracted from the first signal, it is unclear as written if the subtraction occurs first, and the result is multiplied by the weighting factor or if the first signal is multiplied by the weighting factor and then the subtraction occurs. Based on the BRI and explanation within the specification (such as in [0071]), this limitation will be interpreted to read as the latter option, where the first signal is multiplied by the weighting coefficient and then the second signal is subtracted from this result.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "for example" 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).
Regarding claims 10 and 14, the claim as written is indefinite as they introduce “a first value” and “a second value” in reference to a state signal, however, claims 1 (12) already include “a first value” and “a second value” in reference to the weighting coefficients. These mixed “first value” and “second value” references are also prevalent within the specification and lead to further confusion. For examination purposes, claims 10, 14, and the specification (when discussing the state signals) will be interpreted to be referring to “a first state value” and “a second state value” to differentiation from the “first value” and “second value” of the weighting coefficient.
Claims 11 and 15 are similarly rejected as being dependent upon claims 10 and 14, respectively.
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) 1-6 and 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu( US 20230175836 A1) in view of Yan ( US 20230402150 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 13, Hsu teaches a proximity capture device and processing method of an output signal from the proximity capture device, respectively, comprising:
a proximity sensor comprising a light source and a light detector ([0014] - [0018]; Figs. 1, 2, sensor (100) includes emitter (Ls) and sensing regions (PD1, PD2)) including at least one first photodiode configured to generate a first signal when it detects a first light signal emitted by the light source and reflected by an object (Figs. 1, 2 where first light sensing region (PD1) detects signals RL1 and RL3), and one second photodiode configured to generate a second signal when it detects a second light signal emitted by the light source and reflected by the object (Figs. 1, 2 where second light sensing region (PD2) detects signals RL2 and RL4), the proximity sensor being configured to deliver an output signal based on weighting, with a weighting coefficient, the first signal differently from the second signal ([0007], [0021]; where the system outputs first and second calibrated light intensities based on compensation factors);
and a control circuit configured to provide the weighting coefficient to the proximity sensor and receive the output signal ([0014], [0021]), and to:
trigger from a first state in which the weighting coefficient has a first value, to a second state when the output signal crosses a first threshold ([0023] - [0026], [0029] - [0032]; Fig. 4, where the first calibrated intensity values are compared to intensity thresholds (TH11, TH12), and the system begins an object determination of the object distance as "near" or "far");
and compare the output signal obtained by applying the second value and a second threshold so as to trigger from the second state to a third state if the output signal is less than the second threshold, or to trigger from the second state to a fourth state if the output signal is higher than the second threshold ([0023] - [0026], [0029] - [0032]; Fig. 4, where in response to first calibrated intensity values being compared to intensity thresholds, the system determines if an object is in a near or far range and outputs a final distance state after the second calibrated intensity is compared to thresholds (TH21, TH22) based on if the intensity is larger, smaller, or between the thresholds).
Hsu is silent on applying differing weighting coefficients based on a state or output of the system.
Yan teaches an adaptive evaluation method for parameters of sensors such as distance and proximity sensors, where in a second state, a system may apply a weighting coefficient with a second value different from the first value ([0017], [0094] - [0095], [0144]; where the system utilizes a proximity sensor to determine object distance, and where a system may compare parameters to thresholds where differing weights are assigned based on the parameter value for weighted calculations).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Hsu to incorporate the teachings of Yan to incorporate a variable weighting coefficient based on outputs or a status of a proximity detection system with a reasonable expectation of success. To one of ordinary skill in the art, allowing for an adaptive weight value for parameters as taught by Yan in a system which detects object proximity based on light intensity such as in the system of Hsu would have a predictable result of adapting reflection intensity coefficients based on which receiver has higher intensity light incident on it. This result would allow for processes such as calibration of internal reflections which may be greater at one photodetector based on factors (such as the distance to the object), where the calibration reduces the impact of crosstalk and noise within the system.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Hsu as modified above teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein
the third state corresponds to a first distance from the object to the proximity sensor, and the fourth state corresponds to a second distance from the object to the proximity sensor, the second distance being higher than the first distance, or the first distance being higher than the second distance ([0023] - [0026]; where when intensity values are determined as being above or below certain thresholds, these threshold values indicate at least two differing distance ranges from the proximity sensor).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Hsu as modified above teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein
the output signal is obtained by subtracting the second signal from the first signal weighted by the weighting coefficient ([0027], where a difference and/or ratio between calibrated first and second intensities are used to determine a system state, and where the first signal is weighted by a calibration value).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Hsu as modified above teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein
the output signal is preprocessed by a processing device of the proximity sensor, the processing device being coupled with the control circuit ([0015]. [0017], where the sensing regions, such as photodiodes, collect reflected light and output electrical signals in response).
Regarding claims 5-6 and 19-20, Hsu as modified above teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein
the light source and the light detector are located under a capping wall of the proximity sensor, and the first and second photodiodes are disposed side by side, and spaced apart by a distance, along a direction parallel to a plane of the capping wall (Figs. 1, 2, where a first photodiode (PD1) is situated between an emitter (Ls) and a second photodiode (PD2) and under cover (105)).
Regarding claim 8, Hsu as modified above teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein
the first photodiode is located between the light source and the second photodiode (Figs. 1, 2, where a first photodiode (PD1) is situated between an emitter (Ls) and a second photodiode (PD2)).
Regarding claim 9, Hsu as modified above teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein
the proximity sensor is under a wall being able to generate a crosstalk phenomenon by reflecting on wall light signals emitted by the light source then transferred towards the light detector (Figs. 1, 2, where cover (105) may create crosstalk by reflecting emitted light which is detected by photodetectors (RL1, RL2)).
Regarding claims 10 and 14, Hsu as modified above teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein
the control circuit is configured to generate a state signal, the state signal comprising a first value in the third state and a second value in the fourth state ([0029] - [0032]; where in response to both first and second output values being compared to intensity thresholds, the system determines if an object is in a near or far range and outputs a final distance state as either "near" or "far").
Regarding claims 11 and 15, Hsu as modified above teaches the proximity capture device of claim 10 and processing method of an output signal from the proximity capture device of claim 14, respectively, but is silent on the system’s determination of state variables controlling a display screen.
Yan teaches an adaptive evaluation method for parameters of sensors such as distance and proximity sensors, wherein for a proximity sensor which includes a display screen, a state signal is configured to be transferred to the display screen, or to a control circuit of the display screen, so as to control its switching off or on, based on whether the state signal takes the first value or the second value ([0094]; where results from the optical proximity monitor such as a "near" or "far" state may be used to automatically perform on/off or locking control of a screen).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Hsu to incorporate the teachings of Yan to control a screen’s operation based on system values such as a ‘near’ or ‘far’ object determination with a reasonable expectation of success. As Yan notes, these control signals for turning a screen off allow for power saving or automatic screen locking in situations such as for a call (when the device is near an ear) or in a pocket ([0094]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu( US 20230175836 A1) in view of Yan ( US 20230402150 A1), as applied to Claims 1 and 5above, and further in view of Kappel ( US 20190187254 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Hsu as modified above teaches the device according to claim 5, but is silent on a specific orientation of openings within a capping wall or cover.
Kappel teaches an optical sensor module for time-of-flight (TOF) measurement which includes an emitter and at least two detector regions, and a capping wall in addition to a screen where a capping wall includes a first opening located in line with the light source, and a second opening in line with the light detector, for example the second opening is centered on the first photodiode, the second photodiode being located under a non-opened part of the capping wall ([0084] - [0086]; Fig. 4, where a proximity device may have a cover section (CS) which has openings over the light emitter (EM) and a main detector (MD) and no opening over a secondary detector (RD)).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to further modify Hsu to incorporate the teachings of Kappel to include a secondary capping wall which has various orientations of two openings with a reasonable expectation of success. As Kappel notes, apertures such as openings within a cover section allow for control of reference and measurement paths, as well as reducing undesired cross-talk within the system ([0021]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Chua et al. (US 20200057158 A1) teaches a proximity module with two sensors, which may be incorporated into a mobile device to detect objects which may be nearby, or far from, the device where the screen may be controlled by detected signals.
Shimuta (US 20260198858 A1) teaches a detector within a finger-mounted device, which includes at least one light source and a detector which determines proximity to objects, and wherein parameters of the system may be given differing weighting values based on other signals or parameters compared to thresholds.
Arioka et al. (US 10281340 B2) teaches a temperature measuring system for a laser emitter, wherein correlation coefficients are related to threshold values and are used to control the system such as to control the temperature of the laser.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kara Richter whose telephone number is (571)272-2763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8A-5P EST, Fridays are variable.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/K.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights