FINAL OFFICE ACTION
REISSUE OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,630,887
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2
2. ADDITIONAL TERMS 4
3. REISSUE PROCEDURAL REMINDERS 5
4. STATUS OF CLAIMS 6
5. PRIORITY AND AIA STATUS 6
6. RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS 7
7. CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 USC § 251 (New Matter) 8
8. CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 USC § 112(a) 8
8.1. New Matter 8
9. ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER 10
10. CONCLUSION 10
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This final Office action addresses U.S. reissue application No. 17/725,546 (“Instant Application”). Based upon a review of the Instant Application, the actual filing date is 21 April 2022 (“Actual Filing Date”).
The Instant Application is a reissue application of U.S. Patent No. 10,630,887 (“Patent Under Reissue” or “’887 Patent”) titled “WEARABLE DEVICE FOR CHANGING FOCAL POINT OF CAMERA AND METHOD THEREOF.”
An application for the Patent Under Reissue was filed on 22 November 2017 (“Base Application Filing Date”) and assigned by the Office non-provisional U.S. patent application number 15/576,501 (“Base Application” or “’501 Application”) and issued on 21 April 2020 with claims 1–11 (“Originally Patented Claims”).
On 02 July 2024, a non-final Office action was issued (“July 2024 Non-Final Action”).
On 04 November 2024, Applicant submitted a response to the July 2024 Non-Final Action (“November 2024 Response”).
On 18 April 2025, Patent Owner filed a Petition to Accept Unintentionally Delayed Payment of Maintenance Fee in an Expired Patent (37 CFR § 1.378(b)) (“April 2025 Petition”). See IFW of the Base Application.
On 16 May 2025, the Office mailed a Petition Decision granting the April 2025 Petition (“May 2025 Petition Decision”). In particular, the May 2025 Petition Decision states “The [’887 Patent] expired for failure to timely submit the 3 ½ year maintenance fee by April 22, 2024. However, since petitioner has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the delay in timely paying the maintenance fee was unintentional the petition under 37 CFR 1.378(b) is hereby GRANTED.” See IFW of the Base Application.
On 20 June 2025, in view of the May 2025 Petition Decision, a non-final Office action was issued (“June 2025 Non-Final Action”).
On 20 November 2025, Applicant submitted a response to the June 2025 Non-Final Action (“November 2025 Response”).
On 11 December 2025, a final Office action was issued (“December 2025 Final Action”).
On 11 February 2026, a submission and a request for continued examination under 37 CFR § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR § 1.17(e), was filed in the Instant Application after the January 2025 Final Action (“February 2026 RCE”). Since the Instant Application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the December 2025 Final Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed in the February 2026 RCE has been entered.
This final Office action is in response to the February 2026 RCE and addresses the submission therein.
ADDITIONAL TERMS
The following terms may appear in this Office action and, unless expressly noted otherwise, are defined as follows:
“POSITA” refers to a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art.
“BRI” refers to Broadest Reasonable Interpretation.
“MPEP” refers to Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, Ninth Edition, Rev. 01.2024.
“IFW” refers to Image File Wrapper.
“35 USC” refers to Title 35 of the United States Code.
“37 CFR” refers to Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
“AIA ” refers to America Invents Act.
“Original Application” means the prosecution history of the Base Application, including the applications in the patent family’s entire prosecution history. See MPEP § 1412.02.
“Original Disclosure” means the substantive sections of the Base Application (i.e., the abstract, drawings, specification, and original claims) that were present in the Base Application on the Base Application Filing Date.
“Applicant” (uppercase) refers to the Applicant of the Instant Application.
“applicant” (lowercase) refers to an applicant(s) generally.
“patent owner” (lowercase) refers to a patent owner(s) generally and not the Applicant.
“Examiner” (uppercase) refers to the Examiner of the Instant Application.
“examiner” (lowercase) refers to an examiner(s) generally, e.g. the examiner of the Base Application, or any examiner(s) other than the Examiner.
REISSUE PROCEDURAL REMINDERS
Disclosure of other proceedings. Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR § 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which the Patent Under Reissue is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Disclosure of material information. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR § 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These disclosure obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Manner of making amendments. Applicant is reminded that changes to the Instant Application must comply with 37 CFR § 1.173, such that all amendments are made in respect to the Patent Under Reissue as opposed to any prior changes entered in the Instant Application. All added material must be underlined, and all omitted material must be enclosed in brackets, in accordance with Rule 173. Applicant may submit an appendix to any response in which claims are marked up to show changes with respect to a previous set of claims, however, such claims should be clearly denoted as “not for entry.”
STATUS OF CLAIMS
Claims 1–4, 6–10, 12–14, 16–19, 21–22, and 25, as set forth in the February 2026 RCE, are currently pending (“Pending Claims”).
Claims 1–4, 6–10, and 25, as set forth in the February 2026 RCE, are currently examined (“Examined Claims”).
Claims 12–14, 16–19, and 21–22, as set forth in the February 2026 RCE, remain withdrawn (“Withdrawn Claims”).
Regarding the Examined Claims and as a result of this Office action:
Claims 1–4, 6–10, and 25 are rejected under 35 USC § 251.
Claims 1–4, 6–10, and 25 are rejected under 35 USC § 112(a).
PRIORITY AND AIA STATUS
National Stage Information. Based upon a review of the Instant Application, the Base Application, and the Patent Under Reissue, the Examiner finds the Base Application is a National Stage entry of PCT/KR2016/005921 (“International Application”) having an international filing date of 03 June 2016. To the extent the disclosure of the International Application supports the Pending Claims under 35 USC § 112(a), the supported claims receive benefit of a priority date of 03 June 2016, which is the filing date of the International Application.
Foreign Priority. Based upon a review of the Instant Application and the Patent Under Reissue, the Examiner finds the Instant Application contains a claim for benefit of foreign priority under 35 USC §§ 119(a)–(d) to KR 10-2015-0082572 (“Foreign Application”). To the extent the disclosure of the Foreign Application supports the Pending Claims under 35 USC § 112(a), the supported claims receive benefit of a priority date of 11 June 2015, which is the filing date of the Foreign Application. Based upon a review of the Base Application and its prosecution history, the Examiner concludes that Applicant has not perfected their claim for foreign priority. See MPEP § 214.
AIA Status. Because the Instant Application does not contain a claim having an effective date before March 16, 2013, the AIA provisions apply. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC §§ 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
With respect to the remaining Ground #3 under 35 USC § 112(a), Applicant points out that claim 7 has been amended in comparison to previous claim 11. See February 2026 RCE at page 20. In particular, it appears that “direction pointed by” has been removed. Applicant points to the ’887 Patent at C9:L8–26 for support. However, this portion of the ’887 Patent makes no mention of a spatial gesture. Therefore, the rejection is maintained for claim 7, which now includes the language of previous claim 11. The Examiner also notes that Applicant does not separately traverse the rejection of previous claim 5. In particular, Applicant is completely silent with respect to the rejection of previous claim 5, yet claims 1, 6, and 25 are amended to include language from previous claim 5. Therefore, the rejection is also maintained for these claims.
CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 USC § 251 (New Matter)
Claims 1–4, 6–10, and 25 are rejected under 35 USC § 251 as being based upon new matter added to the patent for which reissue is sought. The added material which is not supported by the prior patent is described below under Ground #3, under subsection titled “New Matter” (under section titled “CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 USC § 112(a)”).
CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of 35 USC § 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1–4, 6–10, and 25 are rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
New Matter
Ground #3
Claim 7 does not comply with the written description requirement because it contains new matter. Particularly, for the reasons set forth below, the following limitation introduces new matter, “wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the eyeglass-type computing device to: recognize a user’s spatial gesture, and receive a user input for selecting a location to change focus of the camera in the target object image displayed on the display based on the user’s spatial gesture.” Under the BRI, the term “a user’s spatial gesture” includes, e.g., a direction pointed by the user.
The Patent Under Reissue discloses “The camera 2000 may recognize an object in a direction pointed by a user via a 2D sensor 2310 (refer to FIG. 14) or a 3D sensor 2320 (refer to FIG. 16).” C16:L8–10 (emphasis added).
Under the BRI noted above, the above disclosure does not support the “wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the eyeglass-type computing device to: recognize a user’s spatial gesture, and receive a user input for selecting a location to change focus of the camera in the target object image displayed on the display based on the user’s spatial gesture,” as claimed. For example, camera 2000 is not the eyeglass-type device. Moreover, even if one were to go beyond the invention expressly disclosed in the ’887 Patent and include the camera’s 2D sensor 2310 or 3D sensor 2320 in the eyeglass-type computing device as a spatial gesture recognizing device/unit1, neither of these sensors appear to be or include “instructions” executed by a processor, as claimed. See, e.g., the ’887 Patent at C16:L58–C17:L11. In other words, there is no disclosure of instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause an eyeglass-type computing device to perform recognizing a user’s spatial gesture (e.g., a user pointing to the object) and receiving a user input for selecting a location to change focus of the camera in the target object image displayed on the display based on the user’s spatial gesture. The Examiner further notes that Applicant cannot rely on a generic device/unit as support for “instructions,” when no particular disclosure with respect to instructions or software exists (in both the lack of the use of a term denoting instructions/software and the lack of an algorithm for such instructions/software). See, e.g., MPEP § 2161.01 I.
Similarly, claim 1 recites “wherein the receiving of the user’s first input further comprises receiving a user’s spatial gesture input for selecting a location to change focus of the camera in the target object image displayed on the display.” However, “the display” is of the eyeglass-type computing device. There is no disclosure of selecting a location to change focus of the camera in the image displayed on the display of the eyeglass-type computing device through a user’s spatial gesture input, as claimed. Claims 6 and 25 include similar language and are rejected accordingly. As noted above, Applicant did not traverse this particular rejection in the February 2026 RCE and is thus maintained as uncontested.
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Although claims 1–4, 6–10, and 25 are rejected under 35 USC §§ 251 and 112(a), claims 1–4, 6–10, and 25 are allowable over the prior art for the reasons given in the July 2024 Non-Final Action, which are incorporated herein by reference.
CONCLUSION
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR § 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR § 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR § 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 Jacob Coppola whose telephone number is 571-270-3922.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Andrew J. Fischer can be reached at 571-272-6779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of this proceeding may be obtained from the USPTO’s Patent Center. 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.
General inquiries may also be directed to the Central Reexamination Unit customer service line at (571) 272-7705.
/JACOB C. COPPOLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/KENNETH WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ANDREW J. FISCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
1 See, e.g., ’887 Patent at C3:L66–C4:L4. To be clear, however, the ’887 Patent never expressly discloses or suggests that the device/unit discussed in C3–C4 would include the sensors in the camera. There is also no disclosure of the device/unit discussed in C3–C4 being software or instructions, or if it was, what the software is structurally, e.g., an algorithm for achieving the claimed functions. See, e.g., MPEP § 2161.01 I.
Prosecution Insights