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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 09/22/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 21, 22, and 24-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trail (US 10,061,352) in view of Ross (US 2019/0178476) and further in view of NGUYEN (US 2016/0327246 A1).
Regarding claim 21 and 26, Trail discloses an illumination device (distributed system 100, see Fig. 1), comprising: a battery assembly (neckband 135, see Figs. 1 and 3, Col. 5; lines 59-67 and Col. 6; lines 1-21) configured to be worn by a user, the battery assembly having a battery housing that is U-shaped (see Fig. 1, Col. 6; lines 6-10), the battery housing having a left portion (e.g., first arm 140, see Fig. 1, Col. 6; lines 6-10) and a right portion (e.g., the second arm 145, see Fig. 1, Col. 6; lines 6-10) coupled to a center portion (e.g., 130), the center portion of the battery housing configured to be worn behind a neck of the user (see Fig. 2), the left portion and the right portion of the battery housing configured to extend forward along the sides of the neck of the user (see Fig. 2), the battery assembly having one or more battery cells (batteries, Fig. 3, Col. 6; lines 22-48) coupled to a forward portion of at least one of the left portion and the right portion of the battery housing, the battery assembly (135) having a battery connector (120, see Fig. 1, Col. 3; lines 55-58) configured to be removably coupled to a light worn (e.g. the eyewear device 102 provides light emitted from the display assembly; light source 715, see Fig. 1, Col. 4; lines 3-21, Col. 17; lines 4-17, Col. 18; lines 14-17) on a face or a head of the user (see Fig. 2); and a light control (e.g. switch button 315, see Fig. 3, Col. 10; lines 26-36) coupled to a top surface of at least one of the left portion and the right portion of the battery housing (see Fig. 3).
However, Trail does not explicitly disclose the light control configured to be operated by a part of a face of the user; wherein the part of the face of the user includes one or more of the chin, jaw, cheek, and mouth.
Ross teaches an illumination device, comprising: a battery assembly (harness 10) configured to be worn by a user, the battery assembly having a power source included therein (See Para. 0035); wherein the battery assembly configured to be coupled to a light worn (20, light emitting diodes (LEDs) 14, see Figs. 1A and 2A, Para. 0026) on a face or a head of the user; and a light control (e.g. chin-worn actuator, see Para. 0022) coupled to at least one of the left portion and the right portion of the harness (10), the light control configured to be operated by a part of a face of the user (e.g. chin-worn actuator that can be pressed against the wearer's shoulder, see Para. 0022).
NGUYEN teaches a battery assembly (1200, see Fig. 1C, Para. 0011) configured to be worn by a user, the battery assembly having a battery housing (see Fig. 1) that is U-shaped, the battery housing having a left portion and a right portion coupled to a center portion (see Fig. 1C), the center portion of the battery housing configured to be worn behind the user head, the battery assembly configured to be coupled to a light worn (1100, see Para. 0011-0012) on a face or a head of the user (see Fig. 1B).
Therefore, in view of Ross and NGUYEN, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Trail’s illumination device to include a light attached to an eyewear device and to configure Trail’s activation button to be operated by a part of the user’s face, such as the chin, jaw, cheek, or mouth as suggested by Ross, for the purpose of providing hands-free operation of the illumination devices. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide an improved control system.
Furthermore, with respect to the claim limitation, “the light control configured to be operated by a part of a face of the user”, the Applicant is advised that it has been held by the courts that the recitation that an element is adapted to perform a function or serve in a given application is not a positive limitation, but only requires the ability to so perform. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 138. In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configured the illumination device to be operated by a part of a face of the user thereby the user can operate the device hands-free as suggested by Ross.
Regarding claim 22, Trail further discloses the light control (315, see Fig. 3) includes one or more buttons (see Fig. 3, Col. 10; lines 26-36).
Regarding claim 24, Trail further discloses the light control includes a power switch (see Col. 11; lines 13-15).
Regarding claim 25, The teachings of Trail have been discussed above.
However, Trail does not explicitly disclose the light control includes a brightness control.
Ross further teaches the illumination device can provide a form of brightness control over that area of illumination.
Therefore, in view of Ross, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Trail’s light control to include a brightness control thereby adjusting the effective amount of illumination at the area of interest as suggested by Ross, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, using the light control to include provide a brightness control would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding claim 27. Trail in view of Ross further discloses the light control is sufficiently large to be operated by a part of the face of the user (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 28 and 30, The teachings of Trail have been discussed above.
However, Trail does not explicitly disclose the light control has a width of approximately 1/8 inch to approximately 2 inches, as recited in claim 28; wherein the light control protrudes approximately 1/16 inch to approximately 3/4 inch from the surface of the battery housing, as recited in claim 30.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Trail’s light control to have optimum dimensions in order to make it easily accessible to be operated by the user chin as suggested by Ross, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 29. Trail further discloses the light control (135) protrudes from a surface of the battery housing (135, see Fig. 3).
Claims 21, 22, and 24-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (US 2019/0250412) in view of Ross (US 2019/0178476) and further in view of NGUYEN (US 2016/0327246 A1).
Regarding claim 21 and 26, Jiang discloses an illumination device (display device 1, see Fig. 1, Para. 0018), comprising: a battery assembly (the main power module is included in neck wearable assembly 12, see Figs. 1 and 6; Para. 0023, 0035-0036) configured to be worn by a user, the battery assembly having a battery housing that is U-shaped (see Para. 0032), the battery housing having a left portion (e.g., 12B/12C, see Fig. 5, Para. 0027) and a right portion (e.g., 12C/12B, see Fig. 5, Para. 0027) coupled to a center portion (e.g., 12A), the center portion of the battery housing configured to be worn behind a neck of the user (see Para. 0027), the left portion and the right portion of the battery housing configured to extend forward along the sides of the neck of the user (see Para. 0027), the battery assembly having one or more battery cells (main power module 124, Fig. 6, Para. 0019, 0036) coupled to a forward portion of at least one of the left portion and the right portion of the battery housing, the battery assembly (12) having a battery connector (14, see Fig. 6, Para. 0019) configured to be removably coupled to a light worn (e.g. head-mounted assembly 13, see Figs. 1 and 7, Para. 0018) on a face or a head of the user; and a light control (e.g. switch button 121, see Fig. 4, Para. 0032) coupled to a top surface of at least one of the left portion and the right portion of the battery housing (see Fig. 4).
However, Jiang does not explicitly disclose the light control configured to be operated by a part of a face of the user; wherein the part of the face of the user includes one or more of the chin, jaw, cheek, and mouth.
Ross teaches an illumination device, comprising: a battery assembly (harness 10) configured to be worn by a user, the battery assembly having a power source included therein (See Para. 0035); wherein the battery assembly configured to be coupled to a light worn (20, see Figs. 1A and 2A, Para. 0026) on a face or a head of the user; and a light control (e.g. chin-worn actuator, see Para. 0022) coupled to at least one of the left portion and the right portion of the harness (10), the light control configured to be operated by a part of a face of the user (e.g. chin-worn actuator that can be pressed against the wearer's shoulder, see Para. 0022).
NGUYEN teaches a battery assembly (1200, see Fig. 1C, Para. 0011) configured to be worn by a user, the battery assembly having a battery housing (see Fig. 1) that is U-shaped, the battery housing having a left portion and a right portion coupled to a center portion (see Fig. 1C), the center portion of the battery housing configured to be worn behind the user head, the battery assembly configured to be coupled to a light worn (1100, see Para. 0011-0012) on a face or a head of the user (see Fig. 1B).
Therefore, in view of Ross and NGUYEN, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Jiang’s illumination device to include a light attached to an eyewear device and to configure Jiang’s switch button to be operated by a part of the user’s face, such as the chin, jaw, cheek, or mouth as suggested by Ross, for the purpose of providing hands-free operation of the illumination devices. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide an improved control system.
Furthermore, with respect to the claim limitation, “the light control configured to be operated by a part of a face of the user”, the Applicant is advised that it has been held by the courts that the recitation that an element is adapted to perform a function or serve in a given application is not a positive limitation, but only requires the ability to so perform. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 138. In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configured the illumination device to be operated by a part of a face of the user thereby the user can operate the device hands-free as suggested by Ross.
Regarding claim 22, Jiang further discloses the light control (121, see Fig. 4) includes one or more buttons (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 24, Jiang further discloses the light control includes a power switch (121, see Para. 0032).
Regarding claim 25, The teachings of Jiang have been discussed above.
However, Jiang does not explicitly disclose the light control includes a brightness control.
Ross further teaches the illumination device can provide a form of brightness control over that area of illumination.
Therefore, in view of Ross, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jiang’s light control to include a brightness control thereby adjusting the effective amount of illumination at the area of interest as suggested by Ross, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, using the light control to include provide a brightness control would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding claim 27. Jiang further discloses the light control is sufficiently large to be operated by a part of the face of the user (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 28 and 30, The teachings of Jiang have been discussed above.
However, Jiang does not explicitly disclose the light control has a width of approximately 1/8 inch to approximately 2 inches, as recited in claim 28; wherein the light control protrudes approximately 1/16 inch to approximately 3/4 inch from the surface of the battery housing, as recited in claim 30.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jiang’s light control to have optimum dimensions in order to make it easily accessible to be operated by the user chin as suggested by Ross, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 29. Jiang further discloses the light control (121) protrudes from a surface of the battery housing (12, see Fig. 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21-26 have been considered but are moot because a new basis of rejection is being applied in response to the applicant's amendment to the claims.
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 Tsion Tumebo whose telephone number is 571-270-1668. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am to 4:00 pm, Monday thru Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached on (571)272-7044. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TSION TUMEBO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875