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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 9/26/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “restriction is only proper where the groups of claims are “independent and distinct” and where examining them together would impose a serious search and examination burden” because “Rule 13.2 governs unity of invention during the international phase, the standard in the U.S. national stage” is not governed in the same manner. This is not found persuasive because this application is submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371 which utilizes unity of invention practice under 37 CFR 1.499 rather than U.S. restriction practice under 37 CFR 1.141-1.146 since this application is not filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a). In addition, since prior art such as Bodhi Technology Ventures LLC (WO2015119637) discloses all the features of amended claim 1 as set forth in paragraph 35 as set forth below, there continues to be lack of unity between all the groups.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 18-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 9/26/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 and 5-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in line 4 of Claim 1, insert --at least one-- before “radiation source”;
in line 5 of Claim 1, insert --at least one-- between “the” and “radiation”;
in line 7 of Claim 1, insert --at least one-- before “mobile terminal”;
in line 2 of Claim 2, insert --at least one-- before “radiation source”;
in line 3 of Claim 2, insert --at least one-- before “mobile terminal”;
in line 2 of Claim 3, insert --at least one-- before “mobile terminal”;
in line 3 of Claim 3, insert --at least one-- before “optical sensor”;
in line 3 of Claim 7, insert --at least one-- before “radiation source”;
in line 2 of Claim 8, insert --at least one-- before “mobile terminal”;
in line 4 of Claim 9, insert --at least one-- before “radiation source”;
in line 3 of Claim 11,
insert --the-- before “smartglasses”,
delete “a” and insert --the--;
in line 4 of Claim 12, insert --at least one-- before “mobile terminal”;
in line 3 of Claim 13, insert --at least one-- before “optical sensor”;
in line 4 of Claim 13, insert --at least one-- before “mobile terminal”;
in line 5 of Claim 13,
insert --at least one-- before “optical sensor”,
insert --at least one-- before “mobile terminal”;
in line 3 of Claim 14,
insert --at least one-- before “optical sensor”,
insert --at least one-- before “mobile”;
in line 2 of Claim 17, insert --at least one-- before “radiation source”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “data processing device” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “display device” in claims 3 and 10-11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, there is no written description support for any structure that corresponds to a “data processing device” in claim 1 within the Specification.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In Claim 1, limitation “data processing device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no disclosure of any structure that corresponds to the “data processing device”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the recording" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the identified contaminants" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the lenses" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the lenses" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the image" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the at least one sensor" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the user" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the display device" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the graphical representation" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the user" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the display device" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In Claim 14, it is not clear which one of at least one radiation source the limitation “the radiation source(s)” is attempting to point to.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the data processing" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the at least one first sensor" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the at least one further sensor" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the at least one first sensor" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the at least one further sensor" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the at least one further radiation source" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the total radiation energy" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the respective radiation source" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 7-8, 12-13 and 17 are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bodhi Technology Ventures LLC (WO2015119637).
As to Claim 1, Bodhi Technology Ventures LLC (‘637) discloses a system (see Figure 1-2 and 9-11) comprising at least one radiation source (104, 106) and at least one mobile terminal (100) having at least one optical sensor (102) and having a data processing device (1100, 1105) (see entire document, particularly p. 19 [0103] – last 2 lines), wherein the at least one optical sensor (102) of the at least one mobile terminal (100) is designed and configured to receive reflected radiation of the at least one radiation source (104, 106) (see Figures 1-2), such that surface structures, in particular contaminants, are capable of being detected from the received radiation of the at least one radiation source (104, 106) by means of the data processing device (1100) and are stored (via 1101, 1102) in the data processing device (1100), wherein the mobile terminal (100) is smartglasses, a smartphone, a smart helmet, a tablet, a notebook, or a netbook (see entire document, particularly p. 1 [0002] – lines 3-6, p. 5 [0022]-[0023], pp. 8-9 [0032]).
As to Claim 2, Bodhi Technology Ventures LLC (‘637) discloses that the at least one radiation source (104, 106) is connected to a rechargeable battery of the at least one mobile terminal (100) (see entire document, particularly Figures 1-5, p. 9 [0034], p. 10 [0036] and [0038], p. 16 [0056]).
As to Claim 3, Bodhi Technology Ventures LLC (‘637) discloses that the at least one mobile terminal (100) comprises a display device (332; 1107) (see entire document, particularly Figures 3B and 11, p. 9 [0034] – line 2, p. 10 [0038], p. 19 [0103]), wherein the display device (332; 1108) is designed and configured/capable to reproduce a representation of recordings obtained by the at least optical sensor (102) and/or of the surface structures identified from the reflected radiation by means of the data processing device (1100, 1105), in particular the identified contaminants (see entire document, particularly Figures 3B and 11, p. 9 [0034] – line 2, p. 10 [0038], p. 19 [0103]).
As to Claim 7, Bodhi Technology Ventures LLC (‘637) discloses that the at least one radiation source (104, 106) consists of at least one light emitting diode (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0025], p. 6 [0026], p. 9 [0035] – line 5) or the latter is comprised by the at least one radiation source (104, 106).
As to Claim 8, Bodhi Technology Ventures LLC (‘637) discloses that the at least one radiation source (104, 106) is arranged on the at least one mobile terminal (100) (see Figures 1-3B), wherein the at least one radiation source (104, 106) and the at least one optical sensor (102) are movable or are moved equidirectionally (see Figures 1-5).
As to Claim 9, the data processing device (1100, 1105) of Bodhi Technology Ventures LLC (‘637) is capable of conditioning an image captured by at least one sensor (102 or others) by means of imaging methods and identifies specific elements on a surface detected by way of the reflected radiation of the at least one radiation source (104, 106), in particular contaminants, viruses and/or fungal spores.
As to Claim 10, the data processing device (1100, 1105) of Bodhi Technology Ventures LLC (‘637) is capable of generating a graphical representation of the identified elements and displays it to a user on a display device (332; 1107).
As to Claim 11, the graphical representation is capable of being displayed to the user in a superimposed manner, in particular partly transparently, on a display device (332; 1107) of smartglasses and/or a smart helmet in the system of Bodhi Technology Ventures LLC (‘637) (see entire document, particularly p. 1 [0002] – lines 3-6).
As to Claim 12, Bodhi Technology Ventures LLC (‘637) discloses that the system further comprising at least one further radiation source (106 or 104) is provided in addition to the at least one radiation source (104 or 106) on the at least one mobile terminal (100) and additionally emits radiation (see Figures 1-2).
As to Claim 13, Bodhi Technology Ventures LLC (‘637) discloses that the system further comprising at least one further optical sensor (102) is provided in addition to the at least one optical sensor (102) on the at least one mobile terminal (100) (see entire document, particularly p. 14 [0050] – 3rd line from the bottom), the data of which are capable of being evaluated by the data processing device (1100, 1105) in parallel or alternately with the data of the at least one optical sensor (102) on the at least one mobile terminal (100) (see Figures 1-2 and 9-11).
As to Claim 14, Bodhi Technology Ventures LLC (‘637) discloses that the system further comprising at least one further/third sensor (see entire document, particularly p. 6 [0026] – last 3 lines, p. 9 [0034], p. 10 [0038], p. 14 [0050] – last 3 lines) is comprised in addition to the at least one optical sensor (102) on the at least one mobile terminal (100) in order to detect radiation reflected by the radiation source(s) (104, 106), wherein the data processing device (1100, 1105) is designed and configured to process the data of the at least one further/third sensor in addition to the data of at least one first sensor (e.x. 102) or of at least one further/third sensor (e.x. additional 102 or other sensor(s)), in order to detect contaminants (see Figure 11).
As to Claim 15, Bodhi Technology Ventures LLC (‘637) discloses that the system further comprises at least one first sensor and/or at least one further sensor in the form of a camera (see entire document, particularly p. 9 [0034] – line 3, p. 10 [0038] – line 4).
As to Claim 16, Bodhi Technology Ventures LLC (‘637) discloses that the at least one radiation source (104 or 106) and/or at least one further radiation source (106 or 104) (see entire document, particularly Figures 1-2, p. 6 [0026] – 3rd – 4th lines from the bottom, p. 9 [0034], p. 10 [0038], p. 14 [0050] – 3rd – 4th lines from the bottom) emit(s) radiation with a wavelength in a range of 10 nm to 490 nm, in particular in a range of 280 nm to 380 nm, (see entire document, particularly p. 6 [0026]) capable of to the extent of, in particular, at least 80% of the emitted radiation energy relative to a total radiation energy of a respective radiation source.
As to Claim 17, Bodhi Technology Ventures LLC (‘637) discloses that the at least one radiation source (104, 106) is designed and configured to disinfect a surface (i.e. via ultraviolet wavelength/light - see entire document, particularly p. 6 [0026] – line 7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodhi Technology Ventures LLC (WO2015119637) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (20190384064).
Bodhi Technology Ventures LLC (‘637) is relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Bodhi Technology Ventures LLC (‘637) does not appear to specifically teach that lenses of the smartglasses and/or of the smart helmet comprise a filter, embodied to filter at least 20%, preferably at least 50%, particularly preferably 100%, of light having a wavelength in the range of 100 nm to 380 nm.
It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a filter in a wearable device such as smartglasses. Lee (‘064) discloses smartglasses in which the lenses (20) comprises a filter (70) embodied to filter at least 20%, preferably at least 50%, particularly preferably 100%, of light having a wavelength in the range of 100 nm to 380 nm in order to emit infrared light to execute retinal scanning function (see entire document, particularly p. 1 [0016], p. 2 [0032]-[0034] where emission of infrared light would include filtering out 100% of other types of light including UV light which possesses light having a wavelength in the range of 100 nm to 380 nm). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a filter with a wearable device/system such as smartglasses in the system of Bodhi Technology Ventures LLC as known configuration in order to perform a desired function such as scanning of a surface with an appropriate light/wavelength (i.e. retinal scanning function) when wearing the system.
Thus, Claim 6 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Bodhi Technology Ventures LLC (‘637) and Lee (‘064).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references relate either to the field of the invention or subject matter of the invention, but are not relied upon in the rejection of record: 20170075314, 20190385990, 20220031516, 20220070585, CN108735290, WO2016025323.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINA M YOO whose telephone number is (571)272-6690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 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.
/REGINA M YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758