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 filed 2/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner asserts that the applicant has given a detailed description of the functionality of the prior art and the present invention and has pointed out numerous differences between the two invention and has generally asserted that due to these differences the prior art does not teach the claimed invention. However, the examiner asserts that the differences between the prior art invention and the present invention are related to differences within the specification. Furthermore, the examiner asserts that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The examiner advised the applicant to amend the claims to include further limitation to distinguish against the prior art.
In regards to the arguments related to Claim 1, the applicant gave a detained description of the teachings of the prior art reference Chen. Furthermore, the applicant asserted Chen does not discloses, teaches or suggests "the camera lens is configured to capture or sense a hand gesture by the user, and is configured to transition to capture the image or video in response to the hand gesture", because in Chen there is no component that captures or senses or detects hand gesture and then transitions to capture image or video in response to the hand gesture as detected. Instead, in Chen the front camera keeps capturing the image upon entering a telescopic mode, while the front visual sensor detects hand gesture while the front camera is capturing image. The applicant argues “As explained in the applicant’s previous response, in Chen it is in the image as captured in front of the user’s vision and as displayed to the user, rather than in the forward proximity of the user’s upper body, to recognize the hand movement or gesture, and in response to the hand movement or gesture as recognized, it is to adjust the picture of the captured image, rather than to capture the image.” The applicant further argues “Further, no other disclosure in Chen discloses, teaches or suggests “the camera lens is configured to monitor the forward proximity of the user’s upper body in order to capture or sense a hand gesture by the user, and is configured to transition to capture the image or video in response to the hand gesture”. The examiner disagrees with the applicant and asserts that Chen teaches the camera lens is configured to monitor (images captured through the lens are processed and analyzed by the gesture recognition system) (Page 51) the forward proximity of the user’s upper body (The front vision sensor of the MR glasses detects the user's hand gestures, and then performs zoom adjustment and screenshot position control on the front camera) in order to capture or sense a hand gesture by the user, and is configured to transition (a change in the zoom lens position) to capture the image or video (during video capture the zoom lens position is changed based on a detected hand gesture of the user.
The examiner asserts that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments regarding Claim 2, the applicant argues the claims defines “the camera lens is movable in its capturing direction so that the wearable camera can capture image or video in different directions’, from which it is clear for those skilled in the art that the capture direction of the camera lens is movable (i.e. can change) and thereby the camera can capture in different directions, and it is the movability of the camera lens in its capturing direction, rather than other factor(s) such as the movement of the user’s head or the change in the orientation of her/his head, that makes the wearable camera to be able to capture in different directions. That is, the solution as claimed by claim 2 in the applicant's application is completely different from moving the head or changing the head’s orientation to change the viewing direction of the camera lens. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., [ it is the movability of the camera lens in its capturing direction, rather than other factor(s) such as the movement of the user’s head or the change in the orientation of her/his head, that makes the wearable camera to be able to capture in different directions ]) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The examiner asserts that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In regards to the applicant’s arguments regarding Claim 5, the applicant argues “the applicant respectfully submits that the disclosure "zoom and field of view are changed based on a selection by the user" is different form "transforming the perspective of the wearable lens", and such change cannot cause the image and/or video captured by the wearable lens to be the same as that seen by the user in the field of view“. The examiner disagrees with the applicant and asserts that Chen teaches on Page 30 “optical zoom specifically refers to instructing and controlling the internal zoom lens assembly of the MR glasses through the method of magnification (as shown in Fig. 6-a lens assembly 604). The inside of the zoom lens assembly is composed of a number of optical lenses, which can be driven by electromagnetic drive or/and MEMS drive to change the distance between the lenses to change the focal length of the image, thereby completing the image enlargement and reduction”. The examiner asserts that the claim limitation “transforming the perspective of the wearable lens” is broad and is viewed by the examiner as equivalent to transforming (changing) the perspective (the optical zoom change will change the viewable area for the camera and is viewed as a change in perspective) of the wearable lens.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments regarding Claim 6, The examiner asserts that the claim limitation “transforming the perspective of the wearable lens” is broad and is viewed by the examiner as equivalent to transforming (changing) the perspective (the optical zoom change will change the viewable area for the camera and is viewed as a change in perspective) of the wearable lens. Chen teaches on Page 30 “optical zoom specifically refers to instructing and controlling the internal zoom lens assembly of the MR glasses through the method of magnification (as shown in Fig. 6-a lens assembly 604). The inside of the zoom lens assembly is composed of a number of optical lenses, which can be driven by electromagnetic drive or/and MEMS drive to change the distance between the lenses to change the focal length of the image, thereby completing the image enlargement and reduction”. Therefore, the change in the position of the lenses cause a change in the field of view of the lens and is viewed as a change in perspective. The examiner asserts that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
For these reasons the rejection over the prior art is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1: Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 113709410 A Chen (for examination purposes the examiner has relied upon the provided English translation).
2: As for Claim 1, Chen teaches on Page 12 and depicts in Figure 5, A wearable camera comprising: a housing (see Figure 3); and a camera lens (element 603 depicted in Figure 6a) supported by the housing and configured to capture an image or video; wherein when the wearable camera is worn on a user (MR glasses), the camera lens is configured to monitors the forward proximity of the user's upper body (detects hand gestures) in order to capture or sense a hand gesture by the user, and is configured to transition to capture the image or video in response to the hand gesture.
3: As for Claim 2, Chen teaches on Page 9, Paragraph 5 and Page 14 Paragraph 6 wherein the camera lens is movable in its capturing direction. Chen teaches performing an optical zoom which will move the lens along the optical axis.
4: As for Claim 3, Chen teaches on Page 9, Paragraph 4 wherein the camera lens is capable of swiveling (optical anti-shake correction) in the housing so as to point in a desired direction.
5: As for Claim 4, Chen depicts in Figure 5 and teaches on Page 34, Paragraphs (3-5) wherein the hand gesture by the user defines the field of view (760) to be captured by the camera lens.
6: As for Claim 5, Chen depicts in Figure 5 and teaches on Page 34, Paragraphs (3-5) further comprising a perspective transformation unit positioned in the housing and configured to transform the perspective (zoom and field of view) of the wearable lens for the image and/or video capturing In response to the hand gesture (double hand gesture), such that the image and/or video captured by the wearable lens is the same as that seen by the user in the field of view as defined by the hand gesture.
7: As for Claim 6, Chen depicts in Figure 5 and teaches on Page 34, Paragraphs (3-5) wherein the perspective transformation unit (zoom and field of view) is configured to transform the perspective (zoom) of the wearable lens based on the locations of the camera lens (optical zoom is based on the lens location), the user's eyes (eye tracking is performed as discussed in the abstract), and the hand gesture (see Figure 5).
8: As for Claim 7, Chen depicts in Figure 5 and teaches on Page 34, Paragraphs (3-5) wherein the hand gesture by the user comprises: an image capturing hand gesture to activate the camera lens to capture an image; and a video capturing hand gesture to activate the camera lens to capture a video.
9: As for Claim 8, Chen depicts in Figure 5 and teaches on Page 34, Paragraphs (3-5) wherein the image capturing hand gesture comprises the user providing a frame virtually with two hands (760) or the user pointing to a location with her/his finger.
10: As for Claim 9, Chen depicts in Figure 5 and teaches on Page 4 and on Page 34, Paragraphs (3-5) wherein the video capturing hand gesture comprises the user swiping one of her/his fingers in the air or the user pointing to a location with her/his finger.
11: As for Claim 10, Chen teaches on Page 37, Paragraph [5] further comprising a communication module (wireless communications) positioned in the housing and configured to transfer the image or video captured by the camera lens to an external electronic device (remote computer).
12: As for Claim 11, Chen teaches on Page 12 and depicts in Figure 5 wherein when the wearable camera is worn on a user, the camera lens is configured to continuously monitors the forward proximity of the user's upper body (monitor hand location) in order to capture or sense a hand gesture by the user.
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.
13: Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 113709410 A Chen (for examination purposes the examiner has relied upon the provided English translation) in view of US 20160044298 A1 Holz et al.
14: As for Claims 12 and 13, Chen teaches the use mixed reality glasses that track a user’s hand gestures in order to control image capture, zooming and other camera operations. However, does not teach wherein the camera lens is normally in standby or sleep mode, and configured to be woken up by an input from a user and to then monitor the forward proximity of the user's upper body in order to capture or sense a hand gesture by the user; wherein the input from a user is the user taping on the wearable camera.
Holz et al teaches in Figure 2 and in Paragraph [0041] an augmented reality headset that tracks hand gestures and further teaches the camera lens is normally in standby or sleep mode, and configured to be woken up by an input from a user in the form of a tap and to then monitor the forward proximity of the user's upper body in order to capture or sense a hand gesture by the user in order to decrease battery consumption.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mixed reality glasses of Chen to have a standby mode configured to be woken up by an input from a user in the form of a tap and to then monitor the forward proximity of the user's upper body as taught by Holz et al in order to decrease battery consumption.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JAMES M HANNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7309. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM-5:00 PM Monday thru Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/JAMES M HANNETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
JMH
March 23, 2026