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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on December 1, 2022.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that the computer program product recited in claim 15 is being interpreted as being statutory under 35 USC 101 for the following reasons:
Claim 15 recites “A computer program product for generating contextual wearable device recommendations to a user, the computer program product can include a computer readable storage medium.” As discussed below, the Examiner has rejected claim 15 under 35 USC 112b because the use of the phrase “can include” renders this claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the computer program product necessarily comprises the computer readable storage medium.” The Examiner is interpreting claim 15 as necessarily comprising the computer readable storage medium.
Paragraph [0084] of the as-filed specification discloses “The computer program produce [sic] may also be non-transitory.” However, paragraph [0085] of the as-filed specification discloses “A computer readable storage medium, as used herein, is not to be construed as being transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide or other transmission media (e.g., light pulses passing through a fiber-optic cable), or electrical signals transmitted through a wire.”
Thus, in light of the interpretation of claim 15 as necessarily including the computer readable storage medium, the recited computer program product is being interpreted as being statutory under 35 USC 101.
In the event the claims are amended, they will be subject to further examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed December 1, 2022, has been considered by the Examiner.
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 5-6, 12-13, and 15-20 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.
Claims 5, 12, and 19: Claim 5 recites “wherein the predicting user activity based upon observed historical activity data.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, as predicting user activity based upon observed historical activity data has not been previously recited. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this portion of claim 5 as reciting “predicting user activity based upon observed historical activity data.”
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 6 and 13: Claim 6 recites “wherein characterizing the user’s environment comprises.” It is unclear to which step this refers, as characterizing a user’s environment has not been previously recited. Instead, claim 1 merely recites receiving data characterizing a user’s environment; the actual characterizing of the user’s environment is not a positively recited step in the method. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this portion of claim 6 as reciting “characterizing the user’s environment based on location data provided from…”.
Claim 13 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 15-20: Claim 15 recites “the computer program product can include a computer readable storage medium.” The metes and bounds of this claim are unclear because a person having ordinary skill in the art cannot determine how to avoid infringement. The use of the phrase “can include” renders the scope of the claim unclear because it is unclear what constitutes a computer program product. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting claim 15 as reciting “the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium.”
Claims 16-20 inherit the deficiencies of claim 15.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In the instant case, claim 4 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 recites “wherein the predicting, with a computer, a user activity from the location data.” However, claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, recites “predicting, with a computer, a user activity from the location data.” Thus, claim 4 fails to further limit claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite a method, a system, and a computer program product for generating a contextual wearable device recommendations. With respect to claim 1, claim elements predicting a user activity from location data and matching at least one of the wearable devices to the user activity, cover a mental process. That is, other than reciting that a computer (claim 1), a processor and memory (claim 8), and a processor (claim 15) perform the steps, nothing in the claims preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind.
Claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite receiving and sending steps. These limitations are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, claim 1 recites a computer and claim 8 recites a processor and a memory. These elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Thus, claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims recite receiving and sending information. Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), elements such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, using the Internet to gather data, and storing and retrieving information in memory are considered to be computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPG2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)).
Further, as discussed above, claim 1 recites a computer and claim 8 recites a processor and a memory. These elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Additionally, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite predicting the user activity and matching the devices to the user activity using artificial intelligence. At paragraph [0058] of Applicants’ as-filed specification, Applicants list various types of artificial intelligence models such as regression clustering and K-nearest neighbor analysis. Applicants do not describe the particulars of the models, indicating that the models are sufficiently well-known. Thus, the Examiner interprets the artificial intelligence as a well-understood, routine, or conventional element of the claims.
Thus, claims 1, 8, and 15 are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 depend from claims 1, 8, and 15. Claims 2, 9, and 16 are directed to receiving data which, as discussed above, is an activity that is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. Claims 3, 10, and 17 are directed to the type of wearable device and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18-19 are directed to predicting the user activity and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 6 and 13 are directed to characterizing the user’s environment and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 7, 14, and 20 are directed to configuring the wearable device and are further directed to the abstract idea.
Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8, 11-12, 15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0187811 A1 to Thomee (hereinafter “Thomee”) in view of US 2024/0160480 A1 to Dantuluri et al. (hereinafter “Dantuluri”).
Claims 1, 8, and 15: Thomee discloses “techniques for facilitating the user in viewing content items through the devices of a device set.” (See Thomee, at least para. [0007]). Thomee further discloses a hardware processor (See Thomee, at least para. [0036], processor); and a memory that stores a computer program product (See Thomee, at least para. [0036], memory). Thomee further discloses:
receiving data, at a computer, characterizing a user’s environment, wherein the user environment includes location data (See Thomee, at least FIG. 1 and associated text; FIG. 8 and associated text, server performs the method; FIG. 10 and associated text, first device performs the method; para. [0030], service provided by a set of servers to a set of devices; para. [0039], user device contains a GPS receiver that detects the location of the user device; para. [0111], current environment of the user may be determined/inferred using the user’s current location based on the current location of the user device);
receiving, at the computer, a list of wearable devices that are present on the user (See Thomee, at least para. [0088], first device discovers the other devices comprising the device set; para. [0076], devices may include wearable devices), wherein the user’s wearable devices are characterized by sensors for capability (See Thomee, at least para. [0039], device includes environmental sensors such as a GPS receiver that detects location, velocity, and/or acceleration);
matching, using the computer, at least one of the wearable devices to the user activity… the computer wearable devices are matched by capability of their sensor to the user activity (See Thomee, at least para. [0055], an automated comparison is performed between the device properties of the respective devices of the device set and the content properties of the content item; para. [0058], movie trailer content item may be more completely appreciated or enjoyed if viewed on a recommended device with device properties that are well-suited to the content item, such as a display and audio hardware that enable a full-fidelity rendering of the content properties of the content item, than when presented on a different device that is not as well-suited); and
sending, using the computer, a recommendation identifying the at least one wearable devices to a user device based on the matching (See Thomee, at least para. [0113], recommendation of the recommended device for viewing the content is presented to the user; para. [0114], recommendation is presented to the user through different user interfaces).
Thomee does not expressly disclose predicting, with a computer, a user activity from the location data, wherein predicting the user activity comprises artificial intelligence analyzing the location data for comparison with activities from historical activity data for the user; and wherein by employing artificial intelligence the computer wearable devices are matched by capability of their sensor to the user activity.
However, Dantuluri discloses “multi-channel cognitive virtual assistance for resource transfer requests” that is “configured to receive a request from a first user device to complete a resource transfer between a first resource account and a second resource account; analyze the request via a machine learning engine and generate an intent based on a communication contained in the request; generate an automated notification based on the generated intent and forward the automated notification to a second user device; receive an approval, denial, or change request in response to the automated notification; based on the approval, denial, or change request, initiate a resource action between the first resource account and the second resource account.” (See Dantuluri, at least Abstract). Dantuluri further discloses:
predicting, with a computer, a user activity from the location data, wherein predicting the user activity comprises artificial intelligence analyzing the location data for comparison with activities from historical activity data for the user (See Dantuluri, at least para. [0071], machine learning engine analyzes previous resource transfer or actions history data in order to determine a predicted resource action given the user's location, account history, previous resource transfers, or the like; for example, system requests location data from user device and refers to a database in order to determine that the user is located at a gas station, or the like; system further analyzes the resource action history of the supervised user to determine an average amount authorized by the supervising user for products in the convenience store or gas station category; in some embodiments, the supervised user may simply record and transmit an audio communication with the words “ask mom or dad for gas money,” and the system may contextualize this communication in order to determine an intent that the supervised user is located at a gas station and usually requires an amount in the range of $20-40, or the like); and
wherein by employing artificial intelligence the computer wearable devices are matched by capability of their sensor to the user activity (See Dantuluri, at least para. [0071], machine learning engine analyzes previous resource transfer or actions history data in order to determine a predicted resource action given the user's location, account history, previous resource transfers, or the like; for example, system requests location data from user device and refers to a database in order to determine that the user is located at a gas station, or the like; system further analyzes the resource action history of the supervised user to determine an average amount authorized by the supervising user for products in the convenience store or gas station category; in some embodiments, the supervised user may simply record and transmit an audio communication with the words “ask mom or dad for gas money,” and the system may contextualize this communication in order to determine an intent that the supervised user is located at a gas station and usually requires an amount in the range of $20-40, or the like; after the system has determined an intent, system may generate an automated message including the determination of intent, the rationale for determining the intent, or may attach a transcribed version or portion of the audio communication from the supervised user; for example, the notification may include a message such as “supervised user has requested money for gas—supervised user usually requires about $20-40 for this purpose and is located at gas station X at [address]. Click here to access the communication from supervised use”; thus, system may provide the supervising user with relevant information related to the resource request and may provide a link to download the audio communication or a text-based transcript of the audio communication).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the device set system and method of Thomee the ability of predicting, with a computer, a user activity from the location data, wherein predicting the user activity comprises artificial intelligence analyzing the location data for comparison with activities from historical activity data for the user; and wherein by employing artificial intelligence the computer wearable devices are matched by capability of their sensor to the user activity as disclosed by Dantuluri since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “anticipate and respond to user needs” particularly in “instances where one user supervises the use of multiple other resource accounts owned by others.” (See Dantuluri, at least paras. [0001]-[0002]).
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 4, 11, and 18: The combination of Thomee and Dantuluri discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 and discussed above.
Thomee does not expressly disclose wherein the predicting, with a computer, a user activity from the location data.
However, Dantuluri discloses wherein the predicting, with a computer, a user activity from the location data (See Dantuluri, at least para. [0071], machine learning engine analyzes previous resource transfer or actions history data in order to determine a predicted resource action given the user's location, account history, previous resource transfers, or the like; for example, system requests location data from user device and refers to a database in order to determine that the user is located at a gas station, or the like; system further analyzes the resource action history of the supervised user to determine an average amount authorized by the supervising user for products in the convenience store or gas station category; in some embodiments, the supervised user may simply record and transmit an audio communication with the words “ask mom or dad for gas money,” and the system may contextualize this communication in order to determine an intent that the supervised user is located at a gas station and usually requires an amount in the range of $20-40, or the like).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the device set system and method of Thomee the ability wherein the predicting, with a computer, a user activity from the location data as disclosed by Dantuluri since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “anticipate and respond to user needs” particularly in “instances where one user supervises the use of multiple other resource accounts owned by others.” (See Dantuluri, at least paras. [0001]-[0002]).
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 5, 12, and 19: The combination of Thomee and Dantuluri discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 and discussed above.
Thomee does not expressly disclose wherein the predicting user activity based upon observed historical activity data includes at least one of regression clustering and K-nearest neighbor analysis.
However, Dantuluri discloses wherein the predicting user activity based upon observed historical activity data includes at least one of regression clustering and K-nearest neighbor analysis (See Dantuluri, at least para. [0051], machine learning algorithms include K-nearest neighbor analysis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the device set system and method of Thomee the ability wherein the predicting user activity based upon observed historical activity data includes at least one of regression clustering and K-nearest neighbor analysis as disclosed by Dantuluri since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “anticipate and respond to user needs” particularly in “instances where one user supervises the use of multiple other resource accounts owned by others.” (See Dantuluri, at least paras. [0001]-[0002]).
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomee in view of Dantuluri as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of US 9,467,795 B2 to Kreitzer at al. (hereinafter “Kreitzer”).
Claims 2, 9, and 16: The combination of Thomee and Dantuluri discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 and discussed above.
Neither Thomee nor Dantuluri expressly discloses receiving at the computer registration data from the user, wherein the registration data includes user identity and a list of wearable devices for the user.
However, Kreitzer discloses a “method and apparatus associated with one or more wearable devices for a user includes utilizing the one or more wearable devices, for a set of functionality, in a first configuration by the user, wherein the user is in a specific role.” (See Kreitzer, at least Abstract). Kreitzer further discloses receiving at the computer registration data from the user, wherein the registration data includes user identity and a list of wearable devices for the user (See Kreitzer, at least col. 7, lines 15-40, recommendation engine performs a configuration process for each user and receives configuration information; each user sets up an account and provides a role or function of each user; information regarding which types of wearable devices the user has is also provided).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the device set system and method of Thomee and the resource transfer request system and method of Dantuluri the ability of receiving at the computer registration data from the user, wherein the registration data includes user identity and a list of wearable devices for the user as disclosed by Kreitzer since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide “application optimization and collaboration of wearable devices that configures applications and application settings on a system of wearable devices to optimize functionality and minimize redundancy.” (See Kreitzer, at least col. 1, lines 35-40).
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 3, 10, and 17: The combination of Thomee and Dantuluri discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 and discussed above.
Neither Thomee nor Dantuluri expressly discloses wherein the at least one wearable devices are selected from the group consisting of smart watches, fitness trackers, electrocardiogram (ECG), blood pressure monitors, and combinations thereof.
However, Kreitzer discloses wherein the at least one wearable devices are selected from the group consisting of smart watches, fitness trackers, electrocardiogram (ECG), blood pressure monitors, and combinations thereof (See Kreitzer, at least col. 3, 48-67, wearable devices include smart watch, smart glove that can be configured to monitor blood pressure and track activity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the device set system and method of Thomee and the resource transfer request system and method of Dantuluri the ability wherein the at least one wearable devices are selected from the group consisting of smart watches, fitness trackers, electrocardiogram (ECG), blood pressure monitors, and combinations thereof as disclosed by Kreitzer since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide “application optimization and collaboration of wearable devices that configures applications and application settings on a system of wearable devices to optimize functionality and minimize redundancy.” (See Kreitzer, at least col. 1, lines 35-40).
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 6 and 13: The combination of Thomee and Dantuluri discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 discussed above.
Neither Thomee nor Dantuluri expressly discloses wherein characterizing the user’s environment comprises location data provided from the at least one wearable devices being analyzed with mapping software.
However, Kreitzer discloses wherein characterizing the user’s environment comprises location data provided from the at least one wearable devices being analyzed with mapping software (See Kreitzer, at least col. 13, line 59 to col. 14, line 31, wearable device might be a mobile device and contain a GPS sensor; mobile device also contains mapping and location applications).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the device set system and method of Thomee and the resource transfer request system and method of Dantuluri the ability wherein characterizing the user’s environment comprises location data provided from the at least one wearable devices being analyzed with mapping software as disclosed by Kreitzer since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide “application optimization and collaboration of wearable devices that configures applications and application settings on a system of wearable devices to optimize functionality and minimize redundancy.” (See Kreitzer, at least col. 1, lines 35-40).
Claim 13 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 7, 14, and 20: The combination of Thomee and Dantuluri discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 discussed above.
Neither Thomee nor Dantuluri expressly discloses configuring with the computer the at least one wearable device to function in the user activity.
However, Kreitzer discloses configuring with the computer the at least one wearable device to function in the user activity (See Kreitzer, at least FIG . 4 and associated text; col. 8, lines 23-56, recommendation process 240 includes receiving a request for a recommended configuration of a set of wearable devices for a user; determining the optimal configuration based on the request and the set of wearable devices and also according to the task, event, occupation, user type, and time-of-day; col. 9, lines 1-16, recommendation process includes automatically configuring the set of wearable devices with the optimal configuration for the activity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the device set system and method of Thomee and the resource transfer request system and method of Dantuluri the ability of configuring with the computer the at least one wearable device to function in the user activity as disclosed by Kreitzer since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide “application optimization and collaboration of wearable devices that configures applications and application settings on a system of wearable devices to optimize functionality and minimize redundancy.” (See Kreitzer, at least col. 1, lines 35-40).
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected for similar reasons
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE MARIE GEORGALAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1258 E.S.T.. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached on 571-272-6764. 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.
/Anne M Georgalas/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689