DETAILED ACTION
I. 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 .
II. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 7, 2026 has been entered.
III. Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1,19, and 20 and the 103 rejection in view of Bostick et al. and Yang have been considered but are moot. As agreed to in the interview conducted on April 6, 2026, Yang’s camera is not coupled to a frame at a fixed position as now required the claims. Accordingly, the rejections in view of Bostick et al. and Yang have been withdrawn. However, new grounds of prior art rejection can be found below in sections V and VI.
IV. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 19 is directed to a wrist-wearable device comprising one or more sensors and one or more processors configured to “receive at a head-wearable device, from the one or more sensors, sensor data.” After reviewing the specification, the examiner submits that it supports either the wrist-wearable device, the head-wearable device, or the wrist-wearable device and head-wearable device in combination using the sensor data to determine whether an image capture condition has been triggered and instructing a camera of the head-wearable device to capture an image based on satisfaction of the condition. Facially, claim 19 is nonsensical; it requires that one or more processors of the wrist-wearable receives sensor data at a head-wearable device. It also is ambiguous as to which device or whether both devices perform the sensor data receipt function. Claim 20 is indefinite for similar reasons; it requires that instructions in a computer-readable storage medium cause the wrist-wearable to receive sensor data at a head-wearable device. To overcome this rejection, the examiner suggests deciding whether the intended scope of claims 19 and 20 is to limit the sensor data receipt, image-capture trigger condition determination, and image-capture instruction functions to the wrist-wearable device and accordingly amend the claims. Claims 19 and 20 will not receive a prior art rejection in this Office action.
V. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Connor (US 2021/0249116 A1).
As to claim 1, Connor teaches a method (any of the methods performed by the systems of Figs. 8-19) of using sensor data (e.g., Fig. 8, data from motion sensor “806”) from a wrist-wearable device (e.g., Fig. 8, smart watch “805”) to monitor image-capture trigger conditions for determining when to capture images ([0076], lines 7-9) using an imaging device (e.g., Fig. 8, camera “802”) of a head-wearable device (e.g., Fig. 8, eyewear frame “801”; [0076], line 3), the method comprising:
receiving at a head-wearable device, from a wrist-wearable device communicatively
coupled to a head-wearable device, sensor data ([0076], lines 7-9; {As the output of the motion sensor of the smart watch triggers image capture of the eyewear camera, the examiner submits that the two inherently are communicatively coupled. Moreover, either the eyewear directly receives the motion sensor output or it receives an instruction for the camera to capture an image. Therefore, either the motion sensor output or the instruction can be considered the claimed sensor data.}), wherein:
the head-wearable device and wrist-wearable device are worn by a user (e.g., Fig.
8), and
the head-wearable device includes a frame with the imaging device coupled to the
frame at a fixed position relative to the frame ([0077], lines 4 and 5);
determining, based on the sensor data received from the wrist-wearable device and
without receiving an instruction from the user to capture an image, whether an image-capture
trigger condition for the head-wearable device is satisfied ([0076], lines 7-9; {The receipt of the instruction can be considered a determination that the image-capture trigger is satisfied.}); and
in accordance with a determination that the image-capture trigger condition for the head-
wearable device is satisfied, instructing the imaging device of the head-wearable device to capture image data ([0076], lines 7-9).
As to claim 2, Connor teaches the method of claim 1, wherein:
the sensor data received from the wrist-wearable device is from a first type of sensor (e.g., Fig. 8, motion sensor “806”), and
the head-wearable device does not include the first type of sensor (e.g., Fig. 8, no motion sensor in eyewear “801”).
As to claim 3, Connor teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, from the wrist-wearable device that is communicatively coupled to the head-
wearable device, additional sensor data;
determining, based on the additional sensor data received from the wrist-wearable device,
whether an additional image-capture trigger condition for the head-wearable device is satisfied,
the additional image-capture trigger condition being distinct from the image-capture trigger
condition; and
in accordance with a determination that the additional image-capture trigger condition for
the head-wearable device is satisfied, instructing the imaging device of the head-wearable device
to capture additional image data ([0094]; {The additional sensor data can be motion sensor data that triggers image capture at a temporally distinct time from an initial trigger of the camera to capture an image. Note the activation and deactivation of the camera in para. [0094].}).
As to claim 6, Connor teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the determination that the image-capture trigger condition is satisfied is further based on sensor data from one or more sensors of the head-wearable device (e.g., Fig. 8, chewing sensor “1203”; [0090], lines 4,5, and 8-11).
VI. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
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.
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.
A. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connor (US 2021/0249116 A1) in view of Sazonov et al. (US # 10,736,566 B2)
As to claim 7, Connor teaches the method of claim 1. The claim differs from Connor in that it requires that the determination that the image-capture trigger condition is satisfied is further based on identifying, using data from one or both of the imaging device of the head-wearable device and an imaging device of the wrist-wearable device, a predefined object within a field of view of the user. However, in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Sazonov et al. discloses a head-wearable device (Fig. 2B) including a camera (Fig. 2B, camera “213”) that cooperates with sensor data from a smart watch (col. 14, lines 60-62) to monitor food intake (col. 3, lines 53-56). In addition to sensor data components in the head-wearable device and the smart watch, the head-wearable device may analyze captured images from the device camera to determine whether the user is consuming food (col. 15, lines 49-52).
In light of the teaching of Sazonov et al., the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design Connor’s eyewear to analyze images captured by the camera to determine whether the user is consuming food. As Sazaonov et al. notes in col. 15, lines, 53-56, adding a camera may reduce or eliminate false positives in food intake detection by allowing for visual validation of each intake episode.
B. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connor (US 2021/0249116 A1) in view of Sazonov et al. (US # 10,736,566 B2) and further in view of Park (US 2021/0224522 A1)
As to claim 9, Connor teaches the method of claim 1. The claim differs from Connor in that it requires that, in accordance with the determination that the image-capture trigger condition is satisfied, instructing the wrist-wearable device to store information concerning the user's performance of an activity for association with the image data captured using the imaging device of the head-wearable device.
Sazonov et al. further discloses that sensor data may be stored and timestamped in the smart watch and that cameras images may also be stored (col. 12, lines 1-21) but does not specifically disclose that the sensor data and images are stored in association. However, in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Park discloses a wearable device (Fig. 2A; [0050], lines 9-13) that may store a captured image and an emotion associated with the user in the image determined through image analysis ([0064] and [0065]).
In light of the teaching of Sazonov et al. and Park, the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to store the captured food images and associated sensor data along with a time of intake in Connor’s smart watch. Although Park does not specifically disclose storing images and sensor data regarding food intake, the reference more broadly discloses the storage of image data and associated metadata. When applied to Connor, a user can reference specific food intake periods to remind them what was eaten and for how long, thereby expanding the functionality of the Connor’s system.
.
C. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connor (US 2021/0249116 A1) in view of Cucci et al. (US # 9,628,708 B2)
As to claim 11, Connor teaches the method of claim 1. The claim differs from Connor in that it requires that instructing the imaging device of the head-wearable device to capture the image data includes instructing the imaging device of the head-wearable device to capture a plurality of images.
However, in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Cucci et al. discloses a
mobile device (Figs. 1 and 3A-3C) with camera functionality (Fig. 1, image sensor "14A") that operates with a smart watch (Fig. 7B; col. 17, lines 5-10) and that allows for image capture in burst mode, where multiple images are consecutively captured for a single shot (col. 4, lines 51-53). In light of the teaching of Cucci et al., the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design Connor’s camera to operate in burst mode when triggered to capture images because this would allow the user to select one or more images that he or she specifically likes for long-term storage while deleting those that captured the user in a less desirable manner.
VII. Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4,5,8, and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The reasons for allowability of claims 4,5, and 8 can be found in the previous Office actions. As to claim 10, the examiner has been unable to find a reference disclosing a wrist-wearable device that senses data analyzed to determine whether an image-capture condition for a camera of head-wearable device has been satisfied, where the image-capture condition is based on any of the states required by claim 10.
VIII. Additional Pertinent Prior Art
Wu et al. (US 2022/0121288 A1) teaches a system including smart-glasses and a smartwatch. While a camera of the smart-glasses is in an off state, a user can activate the camera by performing hand gestures. When the smartwatch senses the hand gestures, it triggers activation and image capture by the camera in the smart-glasses.
IX. Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J DANIELS whose telephone number is (571)272-7362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/ANTHONY J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
7/25/2026
Prosecution Insights