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 .
FINAL ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 4/16/2026 has been received and claims 1-3, 5-17 and 20-24 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 20-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 3 of Claim 1, delete “smartglasses” and insert --smart glasses--;
in line 2 of Claim 5, delete “smartglasses” and insert --smart glasses--;
in line 2 of Claim 6, delete “smartglasses” and insert --smart glasses--.
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 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” and “data processing device” in claim 1.
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 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 3 and 9 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 3, it is not clear what additional feature the limitation “of the surface structures identified from….including the contaminants” in lines 4-5 is attempting to set forth as this feature has already been set forth in the parent claim 1 in lines 7-12.
In Claim 9, it is not clear what the metes and bounds of the limitation “means of imaging methods” is attempting to set forth.
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) 1, 3, 5 and 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriya (20210327045) in view of Yoon (11030460).
As to Claim 1, Moriya (‘045) discloses a system (1) comprising at least one radiation source (24); at least one mobile terminal (22), the at least one mobile terminal (22) being in a form of smart glasses or smart helmet (see entire document, particularly p. 2 [0026] – lines 7-9) and having at least one optical sensor (26) and a display device (12 - i.e. head-mounted display (HMD) or lens(es) of the AR glasses- see p. 2 [0026] – lines 8-10); and a data processing device (20); wherein the at least one optical sensor (26) of the at least one mobile terminal (22) is configured to receive radiation (33) of the at least one radiation source (24) reflected (31; 34) from a surface (32) in surroundings of the at least one mobile terminal (22) (see Figures 1-2 and 4A-4B), wherein the data processing device (20) is configured to process sensor data derived from the reflected radiation to detect surface structures including contaminants (30) of the surface and to generate a graphical representation of the detected surface structures (see entire document, particularly Figures 3, 6-7, p. 2 [0033]), and wherein the display device (12) is configured to display the graphical representation to a user in a superimposed, at least partially transparent manner as augmented reality additional information in a field of view of the user (see entire document, particularly Figures 1 and 6-7, and 9-14, p. 2 [0031] and [0033], p. 4 [0051]-[0057]).
Moriya (‘045) does not appear to specifically teach that the at least one mobile terminal comprises the data processing device.
However, it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a data processing device on/in at least one mobile terminal such as smart glasses. Yoon (‘460) discloses at least one mobile terminal in the form of smart glasses (100a) having at least one optical sensor (140b), a display device (140a; 300), and a data processing device (120, 130; 200) (see Figures 22-23) in order to provide a standalone/independent/wireless unit (see Figures 22-23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the data processing device on/in the at least one mobile terminal in the system of Moriya as a known alternate configuration in order to process images and display results as augmented reality to the smart glasses as a wireless/independent/standalone unit as shown by Yoon.
As to Claim 3, Moriya (‘045) discloses that the display device (12 - i.e. head-mounted display (HMD) or lens(es) of the AR glasses- see p. 2 [0026] – lines 8-10) is configured to reproduce a representation of recordings obtained by the at least one optical sensor (26) and/or of the surface structures identified from the reflected radiation by the data processing device (20) (see entire document, particularly Figures 1, 4A-4B, 6-8 and 11-12, p. 2 [0031]).
As to Claim 5, while neither Moriya (‘045) and Yoon (‘460) appears to specifically teach that at least one lens of the smart glasses and/or smart helmet includes a filter configured to filter at least 20% of light having a wavelength below 100 nm and having a wavelength above 380 nm, it would have been obvious to and well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a filter with at least one lens of the smart glasses and/or smart helmet of Moriya as modified by Yoon that is configured to filter at least 20% of light having a wavelength below 100 nm and having a wavelength above 380 nm in order to ensure that majority of light directed by the smart glasses/helmet is the UV light emitted by the at least one radiation source of the smart glasses/helmet for excitation of contaminants on surfaces for contaminant detection. Only the expected results would be attained.
As to Claim 7, Moriya (‘045) discloses that the at least one radiation source (24) consists of at least one light emitting diode (see entire document, particularly p. 2 [0027] – lines 9-10).
As to Claim 8, Moriya (‘045) discloses that the at least one radiation source (24) is arranged on the at least one mobile terminal (22), wherein the at least one radiation source (24) and the at least one optical sensor (26) are movable or are moved equidirectionally (see entire document, particularly Figures 1-2, p. 2 [0026] – lines 7-9).
As to Claim 9, Moriya (‘045) discloses that the data processing device (20) is configured to condition an image captured by the at least one optical sensor (26) by means of imaging methods and to identify specific elements (30) on the surface (32) detected by way of the reflected radiation of the at least one radiation source (24) including the contaminants, and viruses and/or fungal spores (see entire document, particularly Figures 4A-4B, 7, 9 and 11, p. 2 [0030] – lines 1-3).
As to Claim 10, Moriya (‘045) discloses that the graphical representation highlights the detected surface structures by coloring and/or marking the detected surface structures with a highlighted area (110) (see entire document, particularly Figure 11, p. 5 [0070]-[0071], p. 6 [0073] – 4th line from the bottom).
As to Claim 11, Moriya (‘045) discloses that the display device (12) is configured to project the graphical representation in real time into the field of view of the user during cleaning (see entire document, particularly Figures 11-12, p. 5 [0071], p. 6 [0073]-[0074]).
As to Claim 12, while neither Moriya (‘045) and Yoon (‘460) appears to specifically teach that the system further comprises at least one additional radiation source provided on the at least one mobile terminal (22) in addition to the at least one radiation source (24) and configured to emit additional radiation, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an additional radiation source in the system of Moriya as modified by Yoon as an alternate configuration in order to provide additional source of excitation light so as to allow illumination of a greater region to visualize a broader/wider inspection area for presence of contaminants. Only the expected results would be attained (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B)).
As to Claim 13, while neither Moriya (‘045) and Yoon (‘460) appears to specifically teach that the system further comprises at least one additional optical sensor provided on the at least one mobile terminal (22) in addition to the at least one optical sensor (26), (where the data of the at least one additional optical sensor capable of being evaluated by the data processing device (20) in parallel with or alternately with data of the at least one optical sensor (26),) it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an additional optical sensor in the system of Moriya as modified by Yoon as an alternate configuration in order to detect more of the reflected radiation/light so as to allow monitoring of a greater/wider area for presence of contaminants. Only the expected results would be attained (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B)).
As to Claim 14, while neither Moriya (‘045) and Yoon (‘460) appears to specifically teach that the system further comprises at least one third sensor provided on the at least one mobile terminal (22) in addition to the at least one optical sensor (26), the at least one third sensor being configured to detect radiation reflected (31, 33, 34) by the at least one radiation source (24), wherein the data processing device (20) is capable to process data of the at least one third sensor exclusively or in addition to data of the at least one optical sensor (26) or of the at least one additional optical sensor to detect contaminants, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a third sensor in the system of Moriya as modified by Yoon as an alternate configuration in order to provide additional means to detect more or additional reflected radiation/light so as to allow monitoring of contaminants in a greater/wider region. Only the expected results would be attained (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B)).
As to Claim 15, Moriya (‘045) discloses that the at least one optical sensor (26) is a camera (see entire document, particularly p. 2 [0026] – line 3).
As to Claim 16, Moriya (‘045) discloses that the at least one radiation source (24) emits radiation with a wavelength in a range of 10 nm to 490 nm, to the extent of at least 80% of the emitted radiation energy relative to a total radiation energy of the at least one radiation source (24) (i.e. 100% of the emitted radiation since the at least one radiation source 24 emits UV light which has wavelength of 100-400 nm- see entire document, particularly p. 2 [0027]).
As to Claim 17, as Moriya (‘045) discloses that the at least one radiation source (24) emits UV light (which includes UV light having the appropriate UV wavelength for disinfection) (see entire document, particularly p. 2 [0027]), the at least radiation source (24) is capable to disinfect a surface.
Thus, Claims 1, 3, 5 and 7-17 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Moriya (‘045) and Yoon (‘460).
Claim(s) 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriya (20210327045) in view of Yoon (11030460) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (20190384064).
Moriya (‘045) and Yoon (‘460) are relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
While Moriya (‘045) discloses that the at least one radiation source (24) is embodied as a mobile radiation source (i.e. embedded/located on 22 - see Figure 2) and intrinsically comprises a rechargeable battery and/or is connected to a rechargeable battery of the at least one mobile terminal (22 in the form of an AR glasses so as to provide power to components of the smart glasses/helmet and promote mobility of AR glasses and the user wearing the AR glasses or any head-mounted display such as a VR headset, etc.) and Yoon (‘460) discloses that the at least one mobile terminal (100a) further comprises a power supply unit/battery (140c) capable of being a rechargeable battery (see Figure 22), neither Moriya (‘045) nor Yoon (‘460) appears to specifically teach that the at least one radiation source is connected to a rechargeable battery of the at least one mobile terminal and that lenses of the smart glasses 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 rechargeable battery and a filter in a wearable device such as smart glasses. Lee (‘064) discloses smart glasses comprising a rechargeable battery (50, 317, 80) (see entire document, particularly Figures 1-7, p. 2 [0030]-[0031], pp. 2-3 [0035], and p. 3 [0036]) and at least one lens (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 provide power to modules of the smart glasses (see entire document, particularly p. 2 [0030] – last 2 lines, p. 3 [0035]) and 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 rechargeable battery and a filter with a wearable device/system such as smart glasses in the system of Moriya as modified by Yoon as a known configuration in order to provide power to various/all modules of the smart glasses and to perform an additional function with the at least one mobile terminal such as scanning of a surface with an appropriate light/wavelength (i.e. retinal scanning function) when wearing the system as shown by Lee.
Thus, Claims 2 and 6 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Moriya (‘045), Yoon (‘460), and Lee (‘064).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 7 regarding claim interpretation and p. 8 regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) rejections, filed 4/16/2026, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) rejections of claim 1 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same (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 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
Prosecution Insights