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 .
Summary
This action is responsive to the application filed on 03/24/2025. Applicant has submitted Claims 1-5 for examination.
Examiner finds the following: 1) Claims 1-5 are rejected; 2) no claims objected to; and 3) no claims allowable.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of Application No. JP2024-049224, filed on 03/26/2024, has been filed in this matter.
Claim Interpretation
Generally: The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ide (US 20230403788 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ide discloses:
A sensor unit (Ide, FIG. 1, [0027], sensor unit 200) comprising:
a substrate (Ide, FIG. 1, [0028], printed circuit board 105) on which a light-emitting element (Ide, FIG. 1, [0028], light-emitting unit 101) and a light-receiving element are placed (Ide, FIG. 1, [0028], light-receiving unit 104), the substrate including a slit between the light-emitting element and the light-receiving element (Ide, FIG. 1, [0029], cutout 150), the slit being obtained by cutting out the substrate from one side of the substrate to an inside of the substrate (Ide, FIG. 1, [0029], cutout 150); and
a flag including a light-blocking portion configured to block light that travels from the light-emitting element toward the light-receiving element through the slit (Ide, FIG. 1, [0027], flag 102),
wherein the sensor unit detects the flag in a light-blocking state where the light-blocking portion of the flag blocks the light traveling from the light-emitting element toward the light-receiving element (Ide, FIG. 1, [0029], “The flag 102 moves through the cutout 150, thereby blocking the light emitted from the light-emitting unit 101. Consequently, the amount of light received by the light-receiving unit 104 changes, and the flag 102 is detected”),
wherein the flag includes a wall portion configured to cover two directions perpendicular to a surface of the light-blocking portion, the two directions being perpendicular to each other (Ide, FIGS. 7A-C, [0043], back-side side surface 150c), and
wherein, in the light-blocking state, the wall portion covers one of the light-emitting element (Ide, FIGS. 7A-C, [0043], back-side side surface 150c. Examiner notes that if flag 102 is positioned to touch back-side side surface 150c that it would block and cover the units) and …
Ide discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… the light-receiving element in a direction perpendicular to the substrate and in a direction parallel to the substrate and in which the substrate is cut out by the slit.
However, Ide, as noted above, discloses a wall portion that light is able to bounce off of as well as block the path of light depending on the position of the flag. Other positions and orientations would be obvious to try. The rationale for “obvious to try” is one of the KSR factors, specifically choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. Examiner finds it reasonable that PHOSITA would be able to take the teaching of Ide and modify the angle and placement of the flag and any such walls as they see fit, with positions parallel and perpendicular to the board’s surface being obvious main position choices to try, as well as similar considerations for any housing the apparatus may be put into.
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ide with various wall positions. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of various wall positions and how to account for them and how to use them to modify Ide. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(E)), specifically choosing from a limited number of positions to orient the wall around the apparatus while maintaining the function of the apparatus.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ide (US 20230403788 A1) in view of Zeng (CN 204057771 U).
Regarding Claim 2, Ide discloses:
A sensor unit (Ide, FIG. 1, [0027], sensor unit 200) comprising:
a substrate (Ide, FIG. 1, [0028], printed circuit board 105) on which a light-emitting element (Ide, FIG. 1, [0028], light-emitting unit 101) and a light-receiving element are placed on an installation surface (Ide, FIG. 1, [0028], light-receiving unit 104), the substrate including a slit between the light-cmitting element and the light-receiving element (Ide, FIG. 1, [0029], cutout 150), the slit being obtained by cutting out the substrate from one side of the substrate to an inside of the substrate (Ide, FIG. 1, [0029], cutout 150); and
a flag including a light-blocking portion configured to block light that travels from the light-emitting element to the light-receiving element through the slit (Ide, FIG. 1, [0027], flag 102),
wherein the sensor unit detects the flag in a light-blocking state where the light-blocking portion of the flag blocks the light traveling from the light-emitting element toward the light-receiving element (Ide, FIG. 1, [0029], “The flag 102 moves through the cutout 150, thereby blocking the light emitted from the light-emitting unit 101. Consequently, the amount of light received by the light-receiving unit 104 changes, and the flag 102 is detected”), …
… wherein, in the light-blocking state, the flag moves to eliminate a gap between the flag and the wall as viewed in a direction from the light-emitting element to the light-receiving element (Ide, FIG. 1, [0029], “The flag 102 moves through the cutout 150, thereby blocking the light emitted from the light-emitting unit 101. Consequently, the amount of light received by the light-receiving unit 104 changes, and the flag 102 is detected”),
wherein, in the light-blocking state, the wall covers one of the light-emitting element and the light-receiving element in a direction in which the light-emitting element and the light-receiving element are placed as viewed from the installation surface, the direction being perpendicular to the installation surface of the substrate (Ide, FIG. 1, [0029], “The flag 102 moves through the cutout 150, thereby blocking the light emitted from the light-emitting unit 101. Consequently, the amount of light received by the light-receiving unit 104 changes, and the flag 102 is detected”), and
Ide discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein a wall extending in a direction parallel to the installation surface is located on the installation surface side of the substrate,
… wherein, in the light-blocking state, the wall portion covers one of the light-emitting element and the light-receiving element in a direction in which the substrate is cut out by the slit, the direction being parallel to the substrate.
However, Ide, as noted above, discloses a wall portion that light is able to bounce off of as well as block the path of light depending on the position of the flag. Other positions and orientations would be obvious to try. The rationale for “obvious to try” is one of the KSR factors, specifically choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. Examiner finds it reasonable that PHOSITA would be able to take the teaching of Ide and modify the angle and placement of the flag and any such walls as they see fit, with positions parallel and perpendicular to the board’s surface being obvious main position choices to try, as well as similar considerations for any housing the apparatus may be put into.
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ide with various wall positions. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of various wall positions and how to account for them and how to use them to modify Ide. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(E)), specifically choosing from a limited number of positions to orient the wall around the apparatus while maintaining the function of the apparatus.
Ide discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the flag includes a wall portion covering a direction perpendicular to a surface of the light-blocking portion, …
Examiner considered whether this would similarly constitute something that is obvious to try, but instead decided to show a more explicit example. However, Zeng, in a similar field of endeavor (With Arm Support Moving Engineering Machinery And Its Arm Limiting Device), discloses:
… wherein the flag includes a wall portion covering a direction perpendicular to a surface of the light-blocking portion (Zeng, FIGS. 5 & 7, [0034], jib 90, “bracing frame 10 is arranged on band jib mobile engineering machinery, and when being with the jib 90 of jib mobile engineering machinery to rotate on bracing frame 10, bracing frame 10 pairs of jibs 90 play and support and spacing effect, detecting device 20 is arranged on the periphery of bracing frame 10, and lower than the contact surface of bracing frame 10 with jib 90, prevent from jib 90 from receiving in arm process and between detecting device 20 to interfere”), …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ide with the frame and jib of Zeng. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of various frames and jibs and how to account for them and how to use them to modify Ide. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically using known frames and jibs to modify the flag depending on the needs of the user.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Ide and Zeng discloses Claim 2, and Ide further discloses:
… wherein, in the light-blocking state, the flag and the wall are in contact with each other (Ide, FIGS. 7A-C, [0043], back-side side surface 150c. Examiner notes that if flag 102 is positioned to touch back-side side surface 150c that it would block and cover the units).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Ide and Zeng discloses Claim 2, and Zeng further discloses:
… wherein the wall includes a protruding portion extending in a direction perpendicular to the installation surface on the installation surface side of the substrate (Zeng, FIGS. 5 & 7, [0034], jib 90, “bracing frame 10 is arranged on band jib mobile engineering machinery, and when being with the jib 90 of jib mobile engineering machinery to rotate on bracing frame 10, bracing frame 10 pairs of jibs 90 play and support and spacing effect, detecting device 20 is arranged on the periphery of bracing frame 10, and lower than the contact surface of bracing frame 10 with jib 90, prevent from jib 90 from receiving in arm process and between detecting device 20 to interfere”).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Ide and Zeng discloses Claim 2, and Zeng further discloses:
… wherein, in the light-blocking state, the flag and the wall overlap each other as viewed in a direction from the light-emitting element to the light-receiving element (Zeng, FIGS. 5 & 7, [0034], jib 90, “bracing frame 10 is arranged on band jib mobile engineering machinery, and when being with the jib 90 of jib mobile engineering machinery to rotate on bracing frame 10, bracing frame 10 pairs of jibs 90 play and support and spacing effect, detecting device 20 is arranged on the periphery of bracing frame 10, and lower than the contact surface of bracing frame 10 with jib 90, prevent from jib 90 from receiving in arm process and between detecting device 20 to interfere”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD A REVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0079. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5 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, 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.
/CHAD ANDREW REVERMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights