DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-12 filed June 22nd 2026 are pending in the current 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With regards towards Applicant’s arguments regarding the notion that Canoso does not teach “the user-operable part configured to emit light” the Examiner must respectfully disagree. Canoso ¶35 states: “In embodiments, a capacitive touch strip 106 may operate as a rotary dial and button. The touch strip 106 may be oriented along the “spine” of the bedside sleep assistant to offer easy access as a user interface.” Canoso ¶6 states: “the controller configured to store a set of instructions that, when executed, cause the controller to: receive the position input from the user interface; and direct the illumination direction of the directable lighting source to correspond to the received position input from the user interface.” Thus, Canoso teaches the capacitive strip is configured to emit light corresponding to the received position input from the capacitive strip. The Examiner believes that this interpretation falls under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Given the Applicant’s arguments, it would seem that the Applicant intends that the user operable part is configured to illuminate itself. The Examiner has amended the prior art combination to better reflect that interpretation.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canoso et al. (WO/010441) in view of Fadell et al. (US8,489,243) in view of Schenkewitz et al. (US2015/0241195)
Consider claim 1, where Canoso teaches a stationary device comprising: a body; a display provided in the body so as to be viewable from the front; (See Canoso Figs. 1A-D and ¶124-125 where there is a housing and a display in the control ring 104) an user-operable part configured to emit light, provided in an upper region of the body; (See Canoso Figs. 1A-D and ¶32, 35 where there is a capacitive touch strip 106 that the user can perform interactions like sliding and tapping may be used to adjust the light, toggle between lights, select menu options, and the like. Additionally, see Canoso Figs. 5A-C and ¶62-63 where the control ring 104 can emit light depending upon a direction of the input on the touchscreen ) a non-contact sensor configured to detect an object without physical contact, provided in a front part of the body; (See Canoso ¶129 where the monitoring sensor system 1610 may be further configured to sense a gestural movement of a hand in proximity to the housing.) an optical sensor configured to detect light;(See Canoso ¶124 where monitoring sensor system (e.g., radar, humidity, temperature, ambient light)) one or more processors; and one or more memories storing instructions, when executed, that cause at least one of the one or more processors to perform operations. (See Canoso ¶124 where the device comprises a processor and memory to execute the functions of the device)
Canoso teaches a proximity sensor to detect gestural movement of a hand in proximity to the housing and an optical sensor. However, Canoso does not explicitly teach an optical sensor, provided below the non-contact sensor in the front part of the body. However, in an analogous field of endeavor Fadell teaches an optical sensor, provided below the non-contact sensor in the front part of the body. (See Fadell Fig. 8A and col 21 line 36-61, col 20 line 19-41 where there is an active proximity sensor 870A located above a display and a passive infrared sensor 830 located below. See col 26 line 52- col 27 line 29 where the passive infrared (PIR) motion sensor comprises a proximity/ambient light sensor) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control ring 104 of Canoso to be implemented using other known control ring implementations as taught by Fadell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of using known implementations to yield the intended control ring.
Canoso teaches a processor that can wake up the device based on a gesture (See Canoso ¶129), however Canoso does not explicitly teach controlling a function of the stationary device based on an output signal of the non-contact sensor, and controlling the brightness of the display based on an output signal of the optical sensor. However, in an analogous field of endeavor Fadell teaches controlling a function of the stationary device based on an output signal of the non-contact sensor, and controlling the brightness of the display based on an output signal of the optical sensor. (See Fadell col 32 line 57-col 33 line 60 where the device wakes up the unit upon detection of a user walk up or waving their hand and the device is further configured to harness the available ALS (ambient light sensor) data to generate an event better PROX threshold, since it is known that ambient light can add to the background PROX signal noise as well as to the DC value of the PROX readings.) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the contactless command to wake up the bedside sleep assistant device as taught by Canoso by using the ambient light data as taught by Fadell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of using known techniques to generate a better PROX threshold to improve performance of the device.
Canoso teaches a capacitive touch strip that may operate as a rotary dial, however Canoso does not explicitly teach a user operable part configured to emit light, the user-operable part comprising an upper peripheral member configured to be operated by the user, and the entirety of the upper peripheral member being positioned above the body. However, in an analogous field of endeavor Schenkewitz teaches a user operable part configured to emit light, the user-operable part comprising an upper peripheral member configured to be operated by the user, and the entirety of the upper peripheral member being positioned above the body. (See Schenkewitz Figs. 1, 2 and ¶20, 35 where they show a capacitive sensing knob with a center button reflector is arranged inside the plastic knob element and an at least partially light transmissive center button cap is provided on top of the plastic knob element. The center button cap would well above the body of the device) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the capacitive touch strip that may operate as a rotary dial with a capacitive sensing knob as taught by Schenkewitz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of providing a more tactile interface for a better user experience.
Consider claim 2, where Canoso in view of Fadell in view of Schenkewitz teaches the stationary device according to claim 1, wherein the optical sensor and the non-contact sensor are arranged in the horizontal center of a front surface of the body. (See Fadell Fig. 8A and col 21 line 36-61, col 20 line 19-41 where there is an active proximity sensor 870A located above a display and a passive infrared sensor 830 located below. Where 870A and 803 are substantially arranged in the horizontal center of the control ring. See col 26 line 52- col 27 line 29 where the passive infrared (PIR) motion sensor comprises a proximity/ambient light sensor) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control ring 104 of Canoso to be implemented using other known control ring implementations as taught by Fadell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of using known implementations to yield the intended control ring.
Consider claim 3, where Canoso in view of Fadell in view of Schenkewitz teaches the stationary device according to claim 1, wherein the optical sensor is arranged below the display in the front part of the body, and the non-contact sensor is arranged above the display in the front part of the body. (See Fadell Fig. 8A and col 21 line 36-61, col 20 line 19-41 where there is an active proximity sensor 870A located above a display and a passive infrared sensor 830 located below. Where 870A and 803 are substantially arranged in the horizontal center of the control ring. See col 26 line 52- col 27 line 29 where the passive infrared (PIR) motion sensor comprises a proximity/ambient light sensor) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control ring 104 of Canoso to be implemented using other known control ring implementations as taught by Fadell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of using known implementations to yield the intended control ring.
Consider claim 4, where Canoso in view of Fadell in view of Schenkewitz teaches the stationary device according to claim 3, wherein the display is rectangular, the body has, on the front surface thereof, an annular outer frame which extends along an outer periphery of the body, and an enclosure part provided between the display and the outer frame which surrounds the display, and the optical sensor and the non-contact sensor are arranged so as to be overlapped by the enclosure part when viewed from the front. (See Fadell Fig. 8A, 10B, 11A and col 21 line 36-61, col 20 line 19-41 where there is an active proximity sensor 870A located above a rectangular display (LCD module 960) and a passive infrared sensor 830 located below integrated into the control ring. Which is covered by a front lens and front grill. Where 870A and 803 are substantially arranged in the horizontal center of the control ring. See col 26 line 52- col 27 line 29 where the passive infrared (PIR) motion sensor comprises a proximity/ambient light sensor) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control ring 104 of Canoso to be implemented using other known control ring implementations as taught by Fadell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of using known implementations to yield the intended control ring.
Consider claim 5, where Canoso in view of Fadell in view of Schenkewitz teaches the stationary device according to claim 3, wherein the display is rectangular, the body has a circular cover arranged on the front surface of the display, the circular cover extending outward from an outer periphery of the display, and the optical sensor and the non-contact sensor are arranged so as to be overlapped by the cover when viewed from the front. (See Fadell Fig. 8A, 10B, 11A and col 21 line 36-61, col 20 line 19-41 where there is an active proximity sensor 870A located above a rectangular display (LCD module 960) and a passive infrared sensor 830 located below integrated into the control ring. The head unit is enclosed in a circular ring. Where 870A and 803 are substantially arranged in the horizontal center of the control ring. See col 26 line 52- col 27 line 29 where the passive infrared (PIR) motion sensor comprises a proximity/ambient light sensor) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control ring 104 of Canoso to be implemented using other known control ring implementations as taught by Fadell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of using known implementations to yield the intended control ring.
Consider claim 6, where Canoso in view of Fadell in view of Schenkewitz teaches the stationary device according to claim 1, wherein the body is configured such that a part of the body is positioned on a line segment connecting an arbitrary point of the user-operable part and the optical sensor. (See Canoso Figs. 1A-D and Fadell Fig. 8A, 10B, 11A and col 21 line 36-61, col 20 line 19-41 where the display is located between the capacitive touch strip 106 on the top of the device of Canoso and the PIR motion sensor 803 of Fadell) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control ring 104 of Canoso to be implemented using other known control ring implementations as taught by Fadell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of using known implementations to yield the intended control ring.
Consider claim 8, where Canoso in view of Fadell in view of Schenkewitz teaches the stationary device according to claim 6, wherein the user-operable part is arranged above the body and rearward of the optical sensor. (See Canoso Figs. 1A-D and Fadell Fig. 8A, 10B, 11A and col 21 line 36-61, col 20 line 19-41 where the display is located between the capacitive touch strip 106 is rearward on the top of the device of Canoso and the PIR motion sensor 803 located in the head unit of Fadell) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control ring 104 of Canoso to be implemented using other known control ring implementations as taught by Fadell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of using known implementations to yield the intended control ring.
Consider claim 9, where Canoso in view of Fadell in view of Schenkewitz teaches the stationary device according to claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise controlling light emission of the user-operable part based on the output signal of the non-contact sensor. (See Canoso Figs. 5A-C and ¶62-63 where the control ring 104 can emit light depending upon a direction of the input on the touchscreen)
Consider claim 10, where Canoso in view of Fadell in view of Schenkewitz teaches the stationary device according to claim 9, wherein the operations further comprise: pre-setting a region within a detection range of the non-contact sensor; and changing a light emission pattern of the user-operable part when an output signal of the non-contact sensor indicates that an object has moved from within the region to outside the region. (See Fadell Fig. 8A and col 21 line 36-61, col 20 line 19-41 where there is an active proximity sensor 870A located above a display and a passive infrared sensor 830 located below, where the proximity sensor can be used to detect proximity in the range of about one meter so that the thermostat 800 can initiate "waking up" when the user is approaching the thermostat and prior to the user touching the thermostat. The wake-up-on-proximity functionality also allows for energy savings within the thermostat by "sleeping" when no user interaction is taking place our about to take place. See col 26 line 52- col 27 line 29 where the passive infrared (PIR) motion sensor comprises a proximity/ambient light sensor) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control ring 104 of Canoso to be implemented using other known control ring implementations as taught by Fadell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of using known implementations to yield the intended control ring.
Consider claim 11, where Canoso in view of Fadell in view of Schenkewitz teaches the stationary device according to claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: brightening the display when an illuminance in front of the stationary device is below a predetermined threshold based on the output signal of the optical sensor, in a case the output signal of the non-contact sensor indicates relatively large movement of the object, as compared to when the output signal of the non-contact sensor indicates relatively small movement or no movement of the object. (See Fadell col 32 line 57-col 33 line 60 where the device wakes up the unit upon detection of a user walk up or waving their hand and the device is further configured to harness the available ALS (ambient light sensor) data to generate an event better PROX threshold, since it is known that ambient light can add to the background PROX signal noise as well as to the DC value of the PROX readings.) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the contactless command to wake up the bedside sleep assistant device as taught by Canoso by using the ambient light data as taught by Fadell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of using known techniques to generate a better PROX threshold to improve performance of the device.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canoso in view of Fadell in view of Schenkewitz as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Hocherman (US2005/0058026)
Consider claim 7, where Canoso in view of Fadell in view of Schenkewitz teaches the stationary device according to claim 6, wherein the body has an input part on a periphery of the front surface of the body above the optical sensor, (See Canoso Figs. 1A-D and ¶32, 35 where there is a capacitive touch strip 106 that the user can perform interactions like sliding and tapping may be used to adjust the light, toggle between lights, select menu options, and the like. Additionally, see Canoso Figs. 5A-C and ¶62-63 where the control ring 104 can emit light depending upon a direction of the input on the touchscreen)
Canoso teaches an input part, however Canoso does not explicitly teach a protruding part and the protruding part protrudes forward or upward relative to a portion of the body around the protruding part. However, in an analogous field of endeavor Hocherman teaches a protruding part and the protruding part protrudes forward or upward relative to a portion of the body around the protruding part. (See Hocherman Figs. 1 and 2 and ¶33 where the selector knob 22 protrudes from the top of the device) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the capacitive touch strip 106 and substitute it with a rotary knob as taught by Hocherman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of using known control devices in the art to yield similar results. (See Canoso ¶35 where a capacitive touch strip 106 may operate as a rotary dial)
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canoso in view of Fadell in view of Schenkewitz as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Chung et al. (US2022/0065480)
Consider claim 12, where Canoso in view of Fadell in view of Schenkewitz teaches the stationary device according to claim 1, wherein the body further comprises a cover which is arranged on a front surface of the display, the cover extending outwards from an outer periphery of the display, (See Fadell Fig. 13 and col 25 line 19- 54 where there is front unit assembly 900 covering the display)
Fadell teaches a cover, however Fadell does not explicitly teach the cover comprises a first coating layer applied such that regions corresponding to the display and the optical sensor are open, and a second coating layer applied to a region corresponding to the optical sensor, the second coating layer having a higher transmittance for infrared lights and certain frequencies of visible lights than the first coating layer. However, in an analogous field of endeavor Chung teaches a first coating layer applied such that regions corresponding to the display and the optical sensor are open, and a second coating layer applied to a region corresponding to the optical sensor, the second coating layer having a higher transmittance for infrared lights and certain frequencies of visible lights than the first coating layer. (See Chung Figs. 4A, 4B and ¶52, 3, 49 where there is a masking layer 450 (first coating layer) configured to mask the regions not being displayed and an optical coating layer 420. Optical coating layer 420 may be formed using various non-metallic coatings. Non-metallic coatings may serve to interfere less with radio waves emitted by the radar sensor or reflected by objects and are desired to be measured by the radar sensor.) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of Fadell to incorporate the coatings as taught by Chung. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of maintaining the aesthetic properties of the cover while maintaining functionality (See Chung ¶48)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM LU whose telephone number is (571)270-1809. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6:30pm.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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.
WILLIAM LU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2624
/WILLIAM LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights