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 8 August 2025 with respect to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on page 7 of the Remarks that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the claims represent a specific technological improvement to the functionality of wearable glasses. The Examiner disagrees because secure memory is designed to have restricted access to the memory and using the secure memory in its intended use does not provide a technological improvement to the wearable glasses.
Applicant's arguments filed 8 August 2025 with respect to the 102 rejection have been fully considered and the 102 rejection of 8 August 2025 has been withdrawn in light of the claim amendments. The claim amendments are addressed below.
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 1-5, 7-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In the instant case, claim 8 is directed to a “method”.
Claim 8 is directed to the concept of “initiating a transaction” which is grouped under “organizing human activity… fundamental economic practice (conducting a transaction is a fundamental economic practice) and commercial interactions (initiating a transaction is a type of sales activity or business relation)” in prong one of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Claim 8 recites accessing a camera stream, identifying a visual marker, transmitting a request to isolate access of the camera steam to the payment application by restricting camera access permissions, and initiating a transaction. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements of the claim such as a processor, a memory, a secure hardware buffer, and a front-facing camera represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. implement) the acts of initiating a transaction.
When analyzed under step 2B (See MPEP 2106.05), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of initiating a transaction using computer technology (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Dependent claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, 14, and 16-20 do not remedy the deficiencies of the independent claims and are rejected accordingly. The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application In this case, all claims have been reviewed and are found to be substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea (see Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-12, and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purves US 2015/0012426 in view of Aharon US 2025/0068556.
As per claim 8:
Purves discloses a method comprising: accessing a camera stream from a front-facing camera unit of a wearable computing device (¶¶ [0107]-[0112], Figs 3a-c, [0123], Fig 9, [0128]);
identifying a visual marker in the camera stream, the visual marker associated with a payment application (Figs 3a-c, ¶¶ [0107]-[0112], see also Figs 6a-d, [0123]);
in response to identifying the visual marker, transmitting a request to an operating system of the wearable computing device to isolate access of the camera stream to the payment application (¶ [0107]-[0112], Figs 3a-c); storing camera frames of the camera stream (¶ [0091], Figs 4B, 4C)
in response to transmitting the request and storing the camera frames, initiating a transaction using the payment application with exclusive access to the camera stream (¶¶ [0109]-[0112], Figs 3b-c).
Purves fails to explicitly disclose but Aharon does disclose in a secure hardware
buffer of the wearable computing device (Figs 4&5, [0064], abstract). by restricting camera access permissions at an operating system level to the payment application while the payment application is active (Figs 4&5, [0062], [0064]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the features as taught in Aharon in Purves since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in 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. Aharon is in the art of secure memory access and it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to combine the art of Aharon to improve in order to the security of Purves and Aharon specifically contemplates applying the secure memory access with permissions for use in wearables.
As per claim 9:
Purves further discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising: in response to identifying the visual marker, causing display of transaction confirmation instructions on a display unit of the wearable computing device, the transaction confirmation instructions comprising instructions for performing a hand gesture (¶¶ [0107]-[0112] Figs 3a-c);
identifying, by the front-facing camera unit of the wearable computing device; the hand gesture of a user of the wearable computing device, the hand gesture corresponding to the transaction confirmation instructions (¶¶ [0107]-[0112] Figs 3a-c); and
in response to identifying the hand gesture, transmitting the request to the operating system (¶¶ [0107]-[0112] Figs 3a-c).
As per claim 10:
Purves further discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising, causing display of a transaction flow associated with the transaction on the display unit of the wearable computing device (Fig 7, ¶¶ [0102], [0104], [0112], [0391]).
As per claim 11:
Purves further discloses the method of claim 9, wherein identifying the hand gesture further comprises: identifying fingerprint data associated with the hand gesture of the user ([0238], [0324]); and
in response to a determination that the identified fingerprint data matches data in a database of fingerprint data, transmitting the request to the operating system (¶¶ [0107]-[0112] Figs 3a-c, see also [0431] Fig 48B).
As per claim 12:
Purves further discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the request is generated by the payment application (¶¶ [0107]-[0112] Figs 3a-c).
As per claim 14:
Purves further discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the wearable computing device is a head-wearable apparatus (Fig 9, abstract, [0128], [0143], [0284], [0298]).
As per claims 1-5, 7 and 15-20:
Claims 1-5, 7 and 15-20 are rejected under the rationales of claims 8-12 and 14, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bostick US 2016/0070439 Ozserin US 2022/0019780 Maschmeyer US 2025/0139877
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 DAVID P SHARVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 pm EST.
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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692