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
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 5/19/2026. Claims 1, 3, 7, 14-17 are amended, claims 2 and 20 are cancelled, and claims 1 and 3-19 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious US PG Pub. 2014/0085446 to Hicks (hereinafter Hicks, previously cited) in view of US PG Pub. 2013/0214998 to Andes et al. (hereinafter Andes) in view of US Pat. No. 9,720,443 to Malhotra (hereinafter Malhotra).
Regarding claim 1, Hicks discloses a device (Fig. 5A-5B), comprising: a framework (a spectacle frame 204 having side arms 206, Figs. 5A-5B) configured to be worn on a wearer's head; an array of light emitting diodes (LEDs), each LED of the array of LEDs positioned on an inner surface of the framework at a location within a peripheral view of the wearer (“the first array 202a is different to that of the second array 202b, and comprises a greater number of addressable light-sources than the second array … The second array 202b is a scaled down version of the spaced LED arrays as described in relation to the earlier embodiments, and is disposed adjacent to a respective one of the arms 206 of the spectacle frame 204”; [0145]), and another array of LEDs (Fig. 5A-5B), each LED of the other array of LEDs positioned on the inner surface at another location within the peripheral view of the wearer (Figs. 5A-5B), the arrays of LEDs each having a 3 x 3 matrix of LEDs (Figs. 5A-5B; [0145]), arranged in a two-dimensional pattern comprising LEDs both along an axis and orthogonal to the axis (Figs. 5A-5B), that are individually illuminable to emit light patterns (“addressable” alight-sources, Figs. 5A-5B; [0145]); a processor ([0046],[0052]); and a memory accessible to the processor ([0046],[0052]), wherein the memory stores programming for execution by the processor; wherein execution of the programming by the processor configures the processor to: identify an event for presentation to the wearer (“any appropriate pattern of illumination and/or colour, whether that be spatial (e.g. distributed across the array or localised as sub-sets of LEDs) or temporal (e.g. single or multiple LED `flashing` modulation) may be used to convey information relating to objects and/or distances in the wearer's environment to the wearer of the optical device”, [0046],[0052]); select a two-dimensional notification pattern corresponding to the identified event from a plurality of notification patterns stored in the memory ([0052]); and display the selected two-dimensional notification pattern to the wearer by selectively illuminating at least one of the 3 x 3 matrix of LEDs of the array of LEDs or the other array of LEDs at the selected at least one of the location or the other location (Fig. 5A-5B; [0052]);wherein the framework includes a frame (a spectacle frame 204, Figs. 5A-5B), a temple connected to a lateral side of the frame (a spectacle frame 204 having side arms 206, Figs. 5A-5B), and another temple connected to another lateral side of the frame (a spectacle frame 204 having side arms 206, Figs. 5A-5B) and wherein each LED of the 3 x 3 matrix of LEDs of the array of LEDs is adjacent the lateral side of the frame (Figs. 5A-5B) and each LED of the 3 x 3 matrix of LEDs of the other array of LEDs is adjacent the other lateral side of the frame (Figs. 5A-5B).
Hicks discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: the arrays of LEDs each consisting of a 3x3 matrix of LEDs, wherein the two-dimensional notification pattern is a plus symbol or a crisscross symbol, display the selected two-dimensional notification pattern to the wearer to present the plus symbol two dimensional notification pattern or the crisscross two-dimensional notification pattern selected by the processor.
Hicks disclosed that the number of addressable light-sources would have been a result-effective variable routinely optimized by a person having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of finding a balance between the complexity of information provided to the user and the degree to which the wearer could resolve different patterns of light (see [0074],[0143]-[0147]). There is no unexpected result from providing a specific size of array, as claimed, as removal of LEDs relative to the prior art embodiment would have merely removed the amount of information communicable by the display. Such a removal of known elements from prior art is an obvious modification. Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989)
Malhotra discloses: the two dimensional pattern is a 3x3 matrix, wherein the two-dimensional notification pattern is a plus symbol or a crisscross symbol, display the selected two-dimensional notification pattern to the wearer to present the plus symbol two dimensional notification pattern or the crisscross two-dimensional notification pattern selected by the processor (Figs. 50-53, 59D, 60A, 60D, 61C, etc.).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to present a plus symbol or crisscross symbol in a 3x3 matrix as taught by Malhotra with the system as disclosed by Andes. The motivation would have been to display a failure indication (col. 36, ll. 49-51).
Regarding claim 3, Hicks discloses a chunk that is integrated into or connected to the frame on the lateral side and another chunk that is integrated into or connected to the frame on the other lateral side, wherein the array of LEDs is located on the chunk and the other array of LEDs is located on the other chunk (arrays 202b on left and right, Fig. 5A-5B).
Regarding claim 4, Hicks discloses the chunk includes a circuit board that includes the array of LEDs and the other chunk includes another circuit board that includes the other array of LEDs (transparent OLEDs, [0038]-[0040],[0075]-[0076],[0143]-[0147]).
Regarding claims 15, Hicks discloses method of notification for eyewear (Figs. 5A-5B; [0052],[0074],[0143]-[0147]) corresponding to the eyewear of claim 15 including the claimed steps of displaying (Figs. 5A-5B; [0052],[0074],[0143]-[0147]).
Hicks discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: the arrays of LEDs each consisting of a 3x3 matrix of LEDs, wherein the two-dimensional notification pattern is a plus symbol or a crisscross symbol, display the selected two-dimensional notification pattern to the wearer to present the plus symbol two dimensional notification pattern or the crisscross two-dimensional notification pattern selected by the processor.
Hicks disclosed that the number of addressable light-sources would have been a result-effective variable routinely optimized by a person having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of finding a balance between the complexity of information provided to the user and the degree to which the wearer could resolve different patterns of light (see [0074],[0143]-[0147]). There is no unexpected result from providing a specific size of array, as claimed, as removal of LEDs relative to the prior art embodiment would have merely removed the amount of information communicable by the display. Such a removal of known elements from prior art is an obvious modification. Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989)
Malhotra discloses: the two dimensional pattern is a 3x3 matrix, wherein the two-dimensional notification pattern is a plus symbol or a crisscross symbol, display the selected two-dimensional notification pattern to the wearer to present the plus symbol two dimensional notification pattern or the crisscross two-dimensional notification pattern selected by the processor (Figs. 50-53, 59D, 60A, 60D, 61C, etc.).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to present a plus symbol or crisscross symbol in a 3x3 matrix as taught by Malhotra with the system as disclosed by Andes. The motivation would have been to display a failure indication (col. 36, ll. 49-51).
Claims 5-6, 9-11, 13-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious US PG Pub. 2014/0085446 to Hicks (hereinafter Hicks, previously cited) in view of US Pat. No. 9,720,443 to Malhotra (hereinafter Malhotra), as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of US PG Pub. 2013/0214998 to Andes et al. (hereinafter Andes).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Hicks discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose a lookup table.
Andes discloses the memory comprises a lookup table including a plurality of notification events and a corresponding plurality of notification patterns and wherein the identified event is identified in the plurality of notification events and the two-dimensional notification pattern is selected from the plurality of notification patterns (Fig. 17; [0056],[0107]-[0108],[0155]-[0158]). The lookup table is understood to be data and directed to non-functional descriptive matter stored electronically in memory. The presence of data stored within memory does not structurally distinguish the apparatus over prior art akin to programming stored in memory.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a lookup table of notification events as taught by Andes with the system as disclosed by Hicks. The motivation would have been to display varied information to a wearer.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Hicks discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose a lookup table.
Andes discloses the lookup table further comprises presentation locations of each of the plurality of notification patterns and wherein the presentation locations include the location, the other location, or both the location and the other location (Fig. 17; [0056],[0107]-[0108],[0155]-[0158]). The lookup table is understood to be data and directed to non-functional descriptive matter stored electronically in memory. The presence of data stored within memory does not structurally distinguish the apparatus over prior art akin to programming stored in memory.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a lookup table of notification events as taught by Andes with the system as disclosed by Hicks. The motivation would have been to display varied information to a wearer.
Regarding claim 9 and 18, Hicks discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose pairing to a mobile device.
Andes discloses pair the device to a mobile device coupled to the device (Fig. 8, [0098]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide mobile pairing as taught by Andes with the system as disclosed by Hicks. The motivation would have been to expand electronics functionality beyond that which is worn ([0003]).
Regarding claim 10, Hicks discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose pairing to a mobile device.
Andes discloses receive the event from the mobile device (Fig. 8, [0098]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide mobile pairing as taught by Andes with the system as disclosed by Hicks. The motivation would have been to expand electronics functionality beyond that which is worn ([0003]).
Regarding claim 11, Hicks discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose pairing to a mobile device.
Andes discloses acknowledge the event received from the mobile device (execution of the signal is itself acknowledgment, Fig. 8, [0098]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide mobile pairing as taught by Andes with the system as disclosed by Hicks. The motivation would have been to expand electronics functionality beyond that which is worn ([0003]).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Hicks discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose pairing to a mobile device.
Andes discloses the event is identification of a social media notification received by the mobile device and the event is a location guidance instruction alerting the wearer that the device is in a location within a predetermined range of a point-of- interest (Fig. 17; [0056],[0107]-[0108],[0155]-[0158]). The reason for signaling is directed to non-functional descriptive matter stored electronically in memory. The presence of data stored within memory does not structurally distinguish the apparatus over prior art akin to programming stored in memory.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide mobile pairing as taught by Andes with the system as disclosed by Hicks. The motivation would have been to expand electronics functionality beyond that which is worn ([0003]).
Regarding claim 19, Hicks discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose a battery notification.
Andes discloses the identifying the event includes identifying a status of at least one of a battery charge level of the eyewear, receipt of an external communication to the wearer, or a location guidance instruction (Fig. 17; [0056],[0098],[0107]-[0108],[0155]-[0158]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide battery notification as taught by Andes with the system as disclosed by Hicks. The motivation would have been to provide user information regarding the battery.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks in view of Malhotra as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pat. 10,670,888 to Yang et al. (hereinafter Yang).
Regarding claim 7, Hicks discloses the frame includes: a frame front (Fig. 5A-5B); and a frame back (Fig. 5A-5B) and the array of LEDs and the other array of LEDs (Fig. 5A-5B).
Hicks discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose LEDs are coupled to a flexible printed circuit board, the flexible printed circuit board is disposed between the frame front and the frame back, and the flexible printed circuit board extends from the lateral side of the frame to the other lateral side of the frame.
Yang discloses illumination elements (“ I/O devices 1214 may also include output devices 1218 such as one or more of a display screen, display lights, audio speakers, and so forth”; col. 11, ll. 5-14) are coupled to a flexible printed circuit board (FPC 222, Fig. 2), the flexible printed circuit board is disposed between the frame front and the frame back (Fig. 2-11), and the flexible printed circuit board extends from the lateral side of the frame to the other lateral side of the frame (Figs. 2).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a flexible circuit as taught by Yang with the system as disclosed by Hicks. The motivation would have been to allow for communication between left and right temples (Abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Hicks discloses a visible light camera (camera 212, Fig. 5A), wherein: the visible light camera has an outward facing field of view ([0149]), the frame front includes an opening for the visible light camera (gap between temples and front frame, Fig. 5A-5B), and the array of LEDs has an inward facing field of view relative to the visible light camera having the outward facing field of view (Fig. 5A).
Hicks discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose a visible light camera disposed on the flexible printed circuit board.
Yang discloses a visible light camera disposed on the flexible printed circuit board (“a front facing camera may be mounted within the frame bridge 210 and may be connected to the FPC 222 to provide image data to the hardware processor in the temple 308”; col. 6, ll. 40-43), wherein: the visible light camera has an outward facing field of view, the frame front includes an opening for the visible light camera (col. 6, ll. 40-43).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a camera as taught by Yang with the system as disclosed by Hicks. The motivation would have been to allow for communication between left and right temples (Abstract).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks in view of Malhotra and Andes as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 12, Hicks discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose programming by the processor further configures the processor to send an acknowledgement signal from the device to the mobile device.
Examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that acknowledgement signals are old, well-known, and ubiquitous in computer communication systems. Acknowledgment signals in communications generate awareness within the system of devices that commands and processes are executed as expected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST M-F.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights