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 .
Response to Amendment
This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 08/20/2025. Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are pending in the application and are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The objection to the claims has been withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claim 6 is obviated by Applicant's cancellation.
All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (CN 111752010 A) in view of Esmailzadeh (US 20210285633 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Ma teaches a wearable device (Fig. 1 and 4, abstract) comprising:
frames comprising a left frame and a right frame (Fig. 1, frames 1) the left frame being connected to the right frame by a bridge (Fig. 1);
at least one ultraviolet (UV) light source arranged at a lower left side of the left frame and/or a lower right side of the right frame (Fig. 1 and 2, ultraviolet sterilizing tube 8 and UV optical fiber 9 = UV light source, optical fiber 9 encircles perimeter of both left and right frame) with an included angle between the at least one UV light source and a left side edge of the left frame and/or a right side edge of the right frame, the included angle being any angle in a range of 10-60 degrees (Fig. 2 and 4, page 5, para 5, included angle = 45 degrees);
a left temple connected to the left frame (Fig. 1, leg 3);
a right temple connected to the right frame (Fig. 1, leg 3);
a power supply device arranged in the frames, the left temple or the right temple (Fig. 1, lithium battery 11 arranged in left temple), the power supply being electrically connected to the at least one UV light source (page 5, para 2),
a control module (Fig. 1, control circuit board 4), arranged in the frames, the left temple or the right temple (Fig. 1, control circuit board inside right temple 3), the control module being electrically connected to the power supply device and the control module controlling the at least one UV light source (page 5, para 2) to irradiate at a preset frequency (Fig. 1, a control circuit board includes timing circuit 5 which controls the UV light source at a preset frequency, page 5, para 2-5).
Ma does not teach a detection device arranged on the left frame, the right frame, the left temple or the right temple, wherein the detection device is used to detect breathing of a user of the wearable device; and, when the detection device detects that the user inhales or exhales, the detection device transmits an activation signal to the control module, and the control module activates the at least one UV light source by the activation signal so that the at least one UV light source emits UV light to an area around a face of the user.
Esmailzadeh teaches a wearable UV light device with a plurality of LEDs to project UV light at and disinfect air exiting a facial orifice (abstract, [0022-0023]). The wearable light device also contains a microphone ([0039] understood to be detection device) wherein the microphone can detect sneezes, coughs, or other events that may expel germs from user’s facial orifices (also understood to include exhalation) and send an activation signal to a microprocessor to activate the LED device [0039].
Ma and Esmailzadeh are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to wearable sterilization devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wearable device as taught by Ma with the microphone and microprocessor as taught by Esmailzadeh to automatically sterilize the area around a user’s mouth during exhalation since Esmailzadeh teaches the microphone (620) and microprocessor (610) to detect events that expel germs from a user’s facial orifices and automatically actuate UV light to the area [0039] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Ma teaches the wearable device according to claim 1, further comprising a switch module, arranged on the frames, the left temple or the right temple (Ma, Fig. 1, switch circuit 7 arranged on left temple),
wherein the switch module is electrically connected to the power supply device and the at least one UV light source, and the switch module controls a switch of the at least one UV light source (switch is connected to power supply and UV light source, UV light source is activated/deactivated when switch is pressed, page 5, para 1-6).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Ma teaches the wearable device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one UV light source comprises at least one deep UV light source (Ma, page 3, para 6).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Ma teaches the wearable device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one UV light source irradiates to a position around a mouth and a nose in the area around the face of the user (Ma, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Ma teaches the wearable device according to claim 1, further comprising a switch module, arranged on the frames, the left temple or the right temple (Ma, Fig. 1, switch circuit 7 arranged on left temple), wherein the switch module is electrically connected to the power supply device and the at least one UV light source, and the switch module controls a switch of the at least one UV light source (Ma, switch is connected to power supply and UV light source, UV light source is activated/deactivated when switch is pressed, page 5, para 1-6).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Ma teaches the wearable device according to claim 1, including a detection device that automatically activates the at least one UV light source when detecting an inhalation/exhalation (Esmailzadeh, [0039], microphone 620 and microprocessor 610, see rejection of claim 1 above). Therefore, it is understood that because the microphone and microcontroller contain the hardware capable of actuating the UV light sources after detecting audio from a facial orifice (understood to include inhalation and exhalation) and all are in electrical communication, the elements are also capable of deactivating the UV light source in response to another audible triggering event (such as another inhalation or exhalation) when the UV light is in an activated state, since deactivation would be a matter of disrupting the electrical circuit between the UV light, the controller, and the microphone.
As such, the combination as described above and in the rejection of claim 1 meets all the claim limitations including “wherein after the at least one UV light source is activated, when the detection device detects that the user is at end-inhalation or end-exhalation, the detection device transmits a deactivation signal to the control module, and the control module deactivates the at least one UV light source by the deactivation signal” which is understood to recite the functional use of the detection device. See MPEP 2114 (II).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (CN 111752010 A) in view of Esmailzadeh (US 20210285633 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tillmanns (US 20210322620 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Ma teaches the wearable device according to claim 1, including a detection device (Esmailzadeh, 620) but does not teach wherein the detection device is particle detector or an air particle monitor.
Tillmanns teaches a personal sanitizing device, in the form of eyewear (abstract, Fig. 1A), comprising UV-C arrays on the lower edge of the lenses configured to emit UV light towards a wearer’s mouth and nose [0019]. Tillmanns further teaches wherein the device may include an air quality sensor to determine a number of particulates and droplets in the air around the user and appropriately determine what power levels to actuate the UV-C arrays at [0028].
Tillmanns and Modified Ma are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to wearable, sterilizing devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detection device as taught by Modified Ma to include the air quality sensor as taught by Tillmanns to determine a number of particulates and droplets in the air around a user and appropriately allocate power to the UV-C emitters to neutralize said particles and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (CN 111752010 A) in view of Esmailzadeh (US 20210285633 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Poteet (US 20210356771 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Ma teaches the wearable device according to claim 1 wherein and the control module controls the at least one UV light source to irradiate at a preset frequency including a setting time of thirty minutes (Ma, page 5, 2; page 3, para 3). Modified Ma does not teach wherein the preset frequency is any second in a range of 1/15 second to 1/30 second.
Poteet teaches a wearable device for sterilization that emits UV light (abstract), wherein the wearable device is a pair of glasses that contain light emission sources 102a-c configured to flash intermittently [0023] to irradiate a space. Poteet teaches the interval times between the flashes to be 0.7 seconds or less, which is sufficient to inactivate pathogens in a given space while also conserving battery power within the device [0023].
Modified Ma and Poteet are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to wearable sterilization devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wearable device as taught by Modified Ma to intermittently emit UV light at a present frequency less than 0.7 seconds as taught by Poteet since Poteet teaches the flash frequency to inactivate pathogens and conserve battery life of the wearable device [0023] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (CN 111752010 A) in view of Esmailzadeh (US 20210285633 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Rickards (US 8744113 B1).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Ma teaches the wearable device according to claim 1 including a detection device (Esmailzadeh, [0039]) but does not teach wherein the detection device comprises an adjusting mechanism by which the detecting device rotates.
Rickards teaches a wearable eyewear assembly (Fig. 1, 100) comprising a microphone (70) attached to an adjustable segment (71) attached to the eyewear temple. Rickards teaches the adjustable segment to allow for adjustment of the microphone assembly in front to the user’s mouth to better pick up the outbound audio signal, which is understood to include movement alongside a rotatable axis (Fig. 1, [col 14, lines 17-30]).
Rickards and Modified Ma are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to a wearable device, specifically eyewear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wearable device as taught by Modified Ma with the adjustable segment and microphone assembly as taught by Rickards since Rickards teaches the adjustable segment to allow for adjustment of the microphone assembly in front to the user’s mouth to better pick up the outbound audio signal and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Response to Arguments
In the arguments presented on pages 10-11 of the amendment, filed 08/20/2025, the Applicant argues that Ma (CN 111752010 A) does not teach a detection device with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2 and 4-5 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
This argument has been fully considered and is persuasive, therefore the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the prior art Esmailzadeh (US 20210285633 A1), which was cited in the previous action and applied to reject previously presented claim 6 (now cancelled). See rejection of claim 1 above.
In the arguments presented on pages 9-11 of the amendment, filed 08/20/2025, the Applicant argues that the microphone as taught by Esmailzadeh would not be capable of detecting the breathing of a user since inhalation and exhalation may not produce audio with respect to the rejection of previously presented claim 6 (now cancelled and incorporated into amended claim 1) under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is unpersuasive. The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the microphone would not be capable of detecting breathing and points to paragraph [0035] of the Applicant’s specification, submitted 07/28/2022, wherein Applicant submits that the detection device “may be a microphone, particle detector or another type of detection device, such as voice detection device or air particle monitor.” MPEP 2111.01(I) states that “under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification.” In the instant case, the microphone of Esmailzadeh meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “detection device” as recited in amended claim 1 and is consistent with the structure disclosed in the specification.
Therefore, while the rejection of previously presented claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 has been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendment, amended claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (CN 111752010 A) in view of Esmailzadeh (US 20210285633 A1), as applied to previously presented claim 6 (now cancelled). See rejection of claim 1 above.
In the arguments presented on pages 11 of the amendment, filed 08/20/2025, the Applicant argues that Ma (CN 111752010 A) does not teach a detection device wherein the detection device is a particle detector, or an air particle monitor with respect to the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
This argument has been fully considered and is persuasive, therefore the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the art Tillmanns (US 20210322620 A1). See rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210379425 A1 teaches a wearable air purifying device that can detect vital signs of the user.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NEBYATE SEGED whose telephone number is (703)756-4611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 pm (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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/N.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/SEAN E CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799