DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4 of remarks, filed 12/18/2025, with respect to the claim objection of claim 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objection of claim 10 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding paragraph [0211] of Antunes filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, zooming is not necessarily the same thing as aligning the field of view of the user with the field of view of the camera. However, it should be noted that Antunes explicitly discloses that the field of view of the camera is matched with the user’s field of view in paragraph [0095] by changing the field of view of the camera mechanically using a motor described in paragraph [0102]. The only difference between Antunes and the claimed invention is that the field of view of the camera is changed “solely in software” in the claimed invention while Antunes changes the field of view of the camera using a motor.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 with respect to Gigliotti have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Gigliotti is silent about “aligning the field of view of the user with the field of view of the camera”. However, this is irrelevant. As stated above, Antunes explicitly discloses this feature and does not rely on Gigliotti to teach this feature. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Rather, Gigliotti is merely used to show that changing the field of view of a camera solely in software is well-known. Gigliotti also indicates that a motor or Digital Pan, Tilt, Zoom (DPTZ) may be interchangeably used to change the field of view of the camera (5:5-14, 19-26), further proving it obvious to swap hardware with software.
Applicant additionally argues that the combination of Antunes and Gigliotti impermissibly changes the principle of operation of Antunes under MPEP 2143.01 (VI). Specifically, Applicant argues that combining Gigliotti (not directed to a head mounted camera) with Antunes (directed to glasses worn on the head) would result in Antunes losing its head-worn capability. However, this is not true as merely substituting the hardware used to change the FOV of the camera mounted in glasses with software would have no effect on the fact that the camera is mounted in glasses. The end result would also predictably be glasses which weigh less and therefore would be more comfortable for the user.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antunes et al. (US 2020/0029050 A1) hereinafter referenced as Antunes in view of Gigliotti et al. (US 11,425,412 B1) hereinafter referenced as Gigliotti.
Regarding claim 1, Antunes discloses
A method for aligning the field of view of a user with the field of view of a camera mounted on the user’s head, comprising:
providing at least one head-mounted camera module ([0094]; figs.3-4), said camera module including at least one sensor, said at least one sensor including an image sensor (An image sensor is inherent as this is the only way it can capture video), wherein said image sensor output video of an area ([0094]);
receiving a first input from a user (Voice command is used to start recording; [0163]) to expect a second input relating to the field of view (Gestures are used to adjust the camera orientation while recording; [0095]);
receiving said second input relating to the field of view ([0095]); and
aligning the field of view of the user with the field of view of the camera ([0095], [0102]).
However, Antunes, fails to explicitly disclose that the aligning is done solely in software. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Gigliotti.
In a similar field of endeavor, Gigliotti discloses aligning the field of view…of the camera solely in software (5:5-15, 12:60-13:13).
Antunes teaches adjusting the FOV of a camera to match the FOV of a user wherein the FOV adjustment is performed mechanically using a motor. Gigliotti teaches that adjusting the FOV of a camera may be performed solely in software using DPTZ. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the mechanical FOV adjustment mechanism of Antunes with the DPTZ system of Gigliotti to achieve the predictable result of reducing the weight of the wearable device.
Regarding claim 3, Antunes and Gigliotti, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, Antunes discloses, wherein said first input is a voice command (Voice command is used to start recording; [0163]).
Regarding claim 4, Antunes and Gigliotti, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, Antunes discloses, wherein said second input is gestural input from the user (Gestures are used to adjust the camera orientation while recording; [0095]).
Regarding claim 9, Antunes and Gigliotti, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, Antunes discloses, wherein said aligning includes zooming in to an area of said video output from said image sensor ([0097]).
Antunes teaches adjusting the FOV of a camera to match the FOV of a user wherein the FOV adjustment is performed mechanically using a motor. Gigliotti teaches that adjusting the FOV of a camera may be performed solely in software using DPTZ. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the mechanical FOV adjustment mechanism of Antunes with the DPTZ system of Gigliotti to achieve the predictable result of reducing the weight of the wearable device.
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antunes in view of Gigliotti further in view of Bosworth (US 2019/0289198 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Antunes and Gigliotti, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 4), however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose what the gesture is that is used for the second input. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Bosworth.
In a similar field of endeavor, Bosworth discloses wherein said gestural input is a generally circular motion of the user’s fingertips ([0057]; fig. 7).
The combination teaches using a gesture to indicate a field of view for the camera to align with. Bosworth teaches using a circular gesture to indicate a field of view for the camera to align with. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the undisclosed gesture of the combination with a circular gesture to achieve the predictable result of indicating how the camera is to be oriented.
Regarding claim 6, Antunes, Gigliotti, and Bosworth, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 5), in addition, Bosworth discloses, further comprising translating said generally circular motion of the user’s fingertips into a vector-based graph having X and Y coordinates (This is inherent as this is the only way to center the camera on a particular object encircled by the user as shown in fig. 7. Specifically, some two-dimensional coordinates are needed to let the camera know where to adjust its FOV with respect to the circle drawn by the user.).
The combination teaches using a gesture to indicate a field of view for the camera to align with. Bosworth teaches using a circular gesture to indicate a field of view for the camera to align with. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the undisclosed gesture of the combination with a circular gesture to achieve the predictable result of indicating how the camera is to be oriented.
Regarding claim 7, Antunes, Gigliotti, and Bosworth, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 6), in addition, Bosworth discloses, further comprising determining the general center of said vector-based graph using said X and Y coordinates (This is inherent as this is the only way to center the camera on a particular object encircled by the user as shown in fig. 7. Specifically, some two-dimensional coordinates are needed to let the camera know where to adjust its FOV with respect to the circle drawn by the user.).
The combination teaches using a gesture to indicate a field of view for the camera to align with. Bosworth teaches using a circular gesture to indicate a field of view for the camera to align with. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the undisclosed gesture of the combination with a circular gesture to achieve the predictable result of indicating how the camera is to be oriented.
Regarding claim 8, Antunes, Gigliotti, and Bosworth, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 7), in addition, Bosworth discloses, wherein said aligning is performed to said general center of said vector-based graph ([0057]).
The combination teaches using a gesture to indicate a field of view for the camera to align with. Bosworth teaches using a circular gesture to indicate a field of view for the camera to align with. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the undisclosed gesture of the combination with a circular gesture to achieve the predictable result of indicating how the camera is to be oriented.
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antunes in view of Gigliotti further in view of Sodhi et al. (US 2020/0195900 A1) hereinafter referenced as Sodhi.
Regarding claim 10, Antunes and Gigliotti, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, Antunes discloses, further comprising providing at least one light module associated with said camera module ([0076], [0099]); wherein said at least one light module illuminates a light field on a patient…
aligning the field of view of the user with the field of view of the camera ([0095], [0102]).
However, the combination, fails to explicitly disclose a third input from at least one sensor comprises an edge of said light field, determining that the field of view of the user is substantially the same as said light field and aligning the field of view of the user with the field of view of the camera. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Sodhi.
In a similar field of endeavor, Sodhi discloses wherein a third input from at least one sensor comprises an edge of said light field ([0028]; The field of view of the camera is beyond the field of view of the light projector.);
determining that the field of view of the user is substantially the same as said light field ([0028]; The device is meant to keep the light field as the field of view of the camera, therefore, it has inherently been determined that the field of view of the operator is the same as the light field.); and
aligning the field of view of the user with the field of view of the camera ([0028]; The field of view of the camera is matched to the field of view of the light field.).
The combination teaches adjusting the field of view of the camera based on user gestures. Sodhi teaches adjusting the field of view of the camera based on the field of view of an adjustable light field projected onto an object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the use of gestures for controlling the FOV with the use of an adjustable light source to achieve the predictable result of maintaining the proper illumination regardless of what is captured by the camera.
Regarding claim 11, Antunes, Gigliotti, and Sodhi, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 10), in addition, Antunes discloses, wherein said aligning includes zooming in to an area of said video output from said image sensor ([0097]).
Antunes teaches adjusting the FOV of a camera to match the FOV of a user wherein the FOV adjustment is performed mechanically using a motor. Gigliotti teaches that adjusting the FOV of a camera may be performed solely in software using DPTZ. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the mechanical FOV adjustment mechanism of Antunes with the DPTZ system of Gigliotti to achieve the predictable result of reducing the weight of the wearable device.
Regarding claim 12, Antunes, Gigliotti, and Sodhi, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 11), in addition, Antunes discloses, wherein said zooming is performed to a portion of said area generally enclosed by said light field ([0097]).
In addition, Sodhi discloses wherein said zooming is performed to a portion of said area generally enclosed by said light field ([0028]).
The combination teaches adjusting the field of view of the camera based on user gestures. Sodhi teaches adjusting the field of view of the camera based on the field of view of an adjustable light field projected onto an object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the use of gestures for controlling the FOV with the use of an adjustable light source to achieve the predictable result of maintaining the proper illumination regardless of what is captured by the camera.
Regarding claim 13, Antunes, Gigliotti, and Sodhi, the combination, discloses everything claims as applied above (see claim 10), in addition, Antunes discloses wherein said aligning further includes panning and tilting said area of said video output from said image sensor (Platform 6 can rotate the camera vertically and horizontally; [0205]).
Antunes teaches panning and tilting a camera to match the FOV of a user wherein the FOV adjustment is performed mechanically using a motor. Gigliotti teaches that panning and tilting a camera may be performed solely in software using DPTZ. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the mechanical FOV adjustment mechanism of Antunes with the DPTZ system of Gigliotti to achieve the predictable result of reducing the weight of the wearable device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL M BERARDESCA whose telephone number is (571)270-3579. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 10-8, Fri 10-2.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at (571)272-7564. 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.
PAUL M. BERARDESCA
Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/PAUL M BERARDESCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637 1/23/2026