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 § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 2, 5 – 6, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (US 2020/0114517 A1).
With respect to independent claim 1, Wang teaches in Fig. 2 a sensor comprising:
a first transmitter LD1 configured to emit first light;
a second transmitter LD2 configured to emit second light;
a first material 113T1, located above the first transmitter, configured to redirect the first light into a detection zone;
a second material 113T2, located above the second transmitter, configured to redirect the second light into the detection zone; and
a receiver 13 configured to receive light reflected from an object in the detection zone.
With respect to dependent claim 2, Wang teaches in paragraph [0034] wherein: the first material comprises a first diffractive film; and the second material comprises a second diffractive film.
With respect to dependent claim 5, Wang teaches in paragraph [0060] a lens, located above the receiver, configured to focus light on the receiver.
With respect to dependent claim 6, Wang teaches in paragraphs [0012 and 0070] wherein the sensor is configured to determine that an object is in the detection zone based on the reflected light satisfying a threshold.
With respect to dependent claim 8, Wang should have wherein the housing comprises a window that is translucent in the infrared spectrum see paragraph [0067].
With respect to dependent claim 10, Wang teaches wherein: the first transmitter comprises a first infrared light emitting diode; the second transmitter comprises a second infrared light emitting diode in paragraph [0067]; and the receiver comprises a photodiode CMOS, CCD in paragraph [0035].
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) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, and further in view of Costello (US 2011/0204233 A1).
The teaching of Wang has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 7, Wang should have a housing 100 comprising: a first compartment for the first transmitter and the second transmitter; and a second compartment for the receiver, wherein the first compartment and a second compartment are separated by an opaque wall configured to prevent light from passing through.
In addition, Costello, a pertinent art, teaches in Fig. 1 a compartment for the light source and a compartment for the receiver and a second compartment are separated by an opaque wall 25 configured to prevent light from passing through. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Wang in order to prevent any interference coming from light sources to any detector. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 9, Wang is silent with wherein the window comprises a baffle configured to prevent crosstalk between the first compartment and the second compartment. However, Costello teaches in Fig. 1 wherein the window comprises a baffle configured to prevent crosstalk between the first compartment and the second compartment. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Wang in order to prevent crosstalk between desired source and desired detector. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 11 – 14, 16, and 18 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, and further in view of Takai (US 2013/0346019 A1).
The teaching of Wang has been discussed above.
With respect to independent claim 11, as discussed in the rejection justification to claim 1 above, Wang teaches a sensor comprising:
a first transmitter configured to emit first light;
a second transmitter configured to emit second light;
a first refractive or diffractive material, located above the first transmitter, configured to redirect the first light into a detection zone;
a second refractive or diffractive material, located above the second transmitter, configured to redirect the second light into the detection zone; and
a receiver configured to receive light reflected from an object in the detection zone, but is silent with device comprising: a communication interface configured to communicate with a server without using a bridge.
Takai, a pertinent art ,teaches a wireless communication unit. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Wang in order to send/receive desired data via known communication method. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 12, as discussed above, Takai teaches wherein the communication interface comprises a wireless communication interface.
With respect to dependent claims 13 – 14, when modified by Takai, Wang modified by Takai is expected to have the limitation of “wherein the communication interface is further configured to provide information about the device to the server and wherein the communication interface is further configured to receive commands from the server:”
With respect to independent claim 16, as discussed above in the rejection justification to claim 11, Wang modified by Takai teaches a system comprising: a device comprising: a communication interface configured to communicate with a server without using a bridge; and a sensor comprising: a first transmitter configured to emit first light; a second transmitter configured to emit second light; a first refractive or diffractive material, located above the first transmitter, configured to redirect the first light into a detection zone; a second refractive or diffractive material, located above the second transmitter, configured to redirect the second light into the detection zone; and a receiver configured to receive light reflected from an object in the detection zone; and a server configured to provide a dashboard that provides information about the device.
With respect to dependent claims 18 – 19, as discussed above Wang modified by Takai teaches wherein the device is configured to provide information about the device to the server and wherein the server is configured to send commands to the device, wherein the commands are received via the dashboard.
With respect to dependent claim 20, as discussed above Wang modified Takai teaches for one device and have “a second device comprising: a second communication interface configured to communicate with the server without using a bridge; and a second sensor comprising: a third transmitter configured to emit third light; a fourth transmitter configured to emit fourth light; a third refractive or diffractive material, located above the third transmitter, configured to redirect the third light into a second detection zone; a fourth refractive or diffractive material, located above the fourth transmitter, configured to redirect the fourth light into the second detection zone; and a second receiver configured to receive light reflected from an object in the second detection zone” would be obvious to try in order to apply for more than one system.
Claim(s) 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang modified by Takai, and further in view of Coleman (US 2021/0112647 A1).
The teaching of Wang has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claims 15 and 17, Want is silent with wherein the device comprises at least one of: a faucet, a soap dispenser, a hand dryer, a paper towel dispenser, a flushometer, an air freshener, a water dispenser, a water fountain, a bottle filler, or a water bubbler.
In paragraph [0041], Coleman, a pertinent art, teaches faucet. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Wang modified by Takai in order to applying the system of Wang modified by Takai in desired device to detect a human hands. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 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:
With respect to dependent claim 3, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
wherein: the first material comprises a first cutaway to allow the second light to pass without interference; and the second material comprises a second cutaway to allow the first light to pass without interference.
With respect to dependent claim 4, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
wherein: the first material comprises a first refractive lens; and the second material comprises a second refractive lens.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIHO KIM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1628. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5 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, David Makiya can be reached at (571)272-2273. 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.
KIHO KIM, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Kiho Kim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights