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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
This is a response to Applicant’s amendment filed 29 December 2025, wherein:
Claims 1 and 3-8 are amended.
Claim 2 is original.
Claims 1-8 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 29 December 2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. As a reminder, any IDS filed under 37 CFR 1.97 on or after 19 January 2025 is subject to the updated size fee and size fee assertion requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 3-8, it is unclear how the LEDs “visually indicate the user’s state of attentiveness” in claims 1 and 6, “the red LEDs indicating a first state of attentiveness” in claims 3 and 6, “the yellow LEDs indicating a second state of attentiveness, the second state of attentiveness corresponding to a higher level of attentiveness of the user than the first state of attentiveness” in claims 4 and 7, and “the green LEDs indicating a third state of attentiveness of the user, the third state of attentiveness corresponding to a higher level of attentiveness of the user than the first state of attentiveness” in claims 5 and 8. In particular, independent claims 1 and 6 recite that the LEDs are configured to be illuminated when motion is detected by the motion sensor to visually indicate the user’s state of attentiveness. However, the claims and disclosure are silent regarding linking motion to attentiveness. In other words, the LEDs illuminate based on rate of motion but there’s no analysis of that motion to determine an amount of attentiveness. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. Dependent claims 2-5, 7, and 8 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 3-8, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for the LEDs to “visually indicate the user’s state of attentiveness” in claims 1 and 6, “the red LEDs indicating a first state of attentiveness” in claims 3 and 6, “the yellow LEDs indicating a second state of attentiveness, the second state of attentiveness corresponding to a higher level of attentiveness of the user than the first state of attentiveness” in claims 4 and 7, and “the green LEDs indicating a third state of attentiveness of the user, the third state of attentiveness corresponding to a higher level of attentiveness of the user than the first state of attentiveness” in claims 5 and 8 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The specification, at best, merely recites that this function is performed without providing sufficient, if any, description of the steps, calculations, or formulas necessary to perform the claimed functionality. See, for example, at least para. 19-23 of the specification. For instance, para. 19 explicitly identifies that “LED light is configured to display one of three colors, e.g., green, red, and yellow, depending upon a movement or movement frequency of the wearer’s head.” Para. 20-23 recite the user is in various attentiveness mode and assert the drawings illustrate this. However, the drawings are silent regarding any illustration of attentiveness. They only show a face looking forward with the head either upright or tilted to the left or to the right. In other words, the drawings only illustrate some motion of the head. Furthermore, para. 20-23 are silent regarding any analysis of head motion as it relates to attentiveness. Thus, the disclosure is silent regarding any description for determining attentiveness of a user, let alone attentiveness based on head motion. Dependent claims 2-5, 7, and 8 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed 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 Jorasch et al. (US 2021/0399911, hereinafter referred to as Jorasch).
Regarding claim 1, Jorasch teaches motion sensitive eyeglasses (Jorasch, para. 2091, “a frame-based headset (e.g., a glasses headset)”), comprising:
an eyeglass frame configured to be worn on a user’s head (Jorasch, para. 2091, “a frame-based headset (e.g., a glasses headset)”);
a motion sensor located along the eyeglass frame (Jorasch, para. 2091, “Sensors, cameras and microphones could be fitted in or on the frame of the glasses… could include… accelerometer”); and
LEDs located along the eyeglass frame (Jorasch, para. 2091, “Sensors, cameras and microphones could be fitted in or on the frame of the glasses… could include… lights”), wherein the LEDs are configured to be illuminated when motion is detected by the motion sensor in response to the user moving the user’s head while wearing the eyeglass frame on the user’s head to visually indicate the user’s state of attentiveness (Jorasch, para. 484, “Engagement may refer to one or more behaviors of an attendee as described herein. Such behaviors may include paying attention, focusing, making contributions to a discussion, performing a role (e.g., keeping notes), staying on topic, building upon the ideas of others, interacting with others in the meeting, or to any other behavior of interest. In some embodiments, headset 4000 or camera 4100 may provide data that informs the determining of an engagement level (e.g. detection of head drooping down, eyes closing, snoring sounds).” Para. 2217, “communication of the users status could take the form of light, motion, or sound from the user's headset. For example, the ear coverings of the headset could contain one or more LED lights”; para. 2445, “Devices according to various embodiments could allow an AI module to be trained that predicts the device owner's engagement level, mood, and level of alertness or attention.”).
Regarding claim 2, Jorasch teaches the motion sensitive eyeglasses as recited in claim 1, wherein the LEDs include red LEDs, yellow LEDs and green LEDs (Jorasch, para. 2217, “A color scheme could be used such as Green, Yellow, and Red”).
Regarding claim 3, Jorasch teaches the motion sensitive eyeglasses as recited in claim 2, wherein the LEDs are configured to be illuminated when the motion sensor detects motion in response to the user moving the user’s head while wearing the eyeglass frame on the user’s head, the red LEDs indicating a first state of attentiveness of the user (Jorasch, para. 484, “Engagement may refer to one or more behaviors of an attendee as described herein. Such behaviors may include paying attention, focusing, making contributions to a discussion, performing a role (e.g., keeping notes), staying on topic, building upon the ideas of others, interacting with others in the meeting, or to any other behavior of interest. In some embodiments, headset 4000 or camera 4100 may provide data that informs the determining of an engagement level (e.g. detection of head drooping down, eyes closing, snoring sounds).” Para. 2217, “communication of the users status could take the form of light, motion, or sound from the user's headset. For example, the ear coverings of the headset could contain one or more LED lights”; para. 2445, “Devices according to various embodiments could allow an AI module to be trained that predicts the device owner's engagement level, mood, and level of alertness or attention.”).
Regarding claim 6, Jorasch teaches a method of utilizing motion sensitive eyeglasses (Jorasch, Abstract, “methods… are provided for providing information about individuals, such as capabilities in the context of meetings.”), comprising:
wearing motion sensitive eyeglasses on a user’s head (Jorasch, para. 2091, “a frame-based headset (e.g., a glasses headset)”);
sensing a motion of the motion sensitive eyeglasses through a motion sensor located along a frame of the motion sensitive eyeglasses in response to the user moving the user’s head while wearing the motion sensitive eyeglasses on said user’s head (Jorasch, para. 2091, “Sensors, cameras and microphones could be fitted in or on the frame of the glasses… could include… accelerometer”; para. 2109, “The headset could be used as a head orientation tracker. Accelerometers located in the headband, ear cups, or other locations in the device could be used to detect head orientation in X, Y, Z coordinates, as well as tilt, pitch, velocity and acceleration of the head.”); and
illuminating red LEDs located along the frame of the motion sensitive eyeglasses when motion is sensed by the motion sensor, the red LEDs visually indicating a first state of attentiveness of the user (Jorasch, para. 484, “Engagement may refer to one or more behaviors of an attendee as described herein. Such behaviors may include paying attention, focusing, making contributions to a discussion, performing a role (e.g., keeping notes), staying on topic, building upon the ideas of others, interacting with others in the meeting, or to any other behavior of interest. In some embodiments, headset 4000 or camera 4100 may provide data that informs the determining of an engagement level (e.g. detection of head drooping down, eyes closing, snoring sounds).” Para. 2217, “communication of the users status could take the form of light, motion, or sound from the user's headset. For example, the ear coverings of the headset could contain one or more LED lights”; para. 2445, “Devices according to various embodiments could allow an AI module to be trained that predicts the device owner's engagement level, mood, and level of alertness or attention.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 103 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 4, 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorasch et al. (US 2021/0399911, hereinafter referred to as Jorasch).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Jorasch teaches (claim 4) the motion sensitive eyeglasses as recited in claim 3, wherein the LEDs are illuminated when the motion sensor detects a decrease in motion, the yellow LEDs indicating a second state of attentiveness of the user (Jorasch, para. 484, “Engagement may refer to one or more behaviors of an attendee as described herein. Such behaviors may include paying attention, focusing, making contributions to a discussion, performing a role (e.g., keeping notes), staying on topic, building upon the ideas of others, interacting with others in the meeting, or to any other behavior of interest. In some embodiments, headset 4000 or camera 4100 may provide data that informs the determining of an engagement level (e.g. detection of head drooping down, eyes closing, snoring sounds).” Para. 2217, “communication of the users status could take the form of light, motion, or sound from the user's headset. For example, the ear coverings of the headset could contain one or more LED lights”; para. 2445, “Devices according to various embodiments could allow an AI module to be trained that predicts the device owner's engagement level, mood, and level of alertness or attention.”).
Jorasch teaches (claim 5) the motion sensitive eyeglasses as recited in claim 3, wherein the LEDs are illuminated when the motion sensor does not detect motion, the green LEDs indicating a third state of attentiveness of the user (Jorasch, para. 484, “Engagement may refer to one or more behaviors of an attendee as described herein. Such behaviors may include paying attention, focusing, making contributions to a discussion, performing a role (e.g., keeping notes), staying on topic, building upon the ideas of others, interacting with others in the meeting, or to any other behavior of interest. In some embodiments, headset 4000 or camera 4100 may provide data that informs the determining of an engagement level (e.g. detection of head drooping down, eyes closing, snoring sounds).” Para. 2217, “communication of the users status could take the form of light, motion, or sound from the user's headset. For example, the ear coverings of the headset could contain one or more LED lights”; para. 2445, “Devices according to various embodiments could allow an AI module to be trained that predicts the device owner's engagement level, mood, and level of alertness or attention.”).
While Jorasch teaches using a red, yellow, green visual alert scheme (identified above) to distinguish between user states, Jorasch does not explicitly teach which LED color is used for each motion detection scenario in claims 4 and 5, the second state of attentiveness corresponding to a higher level of attentiveness of the user than the first state of attentiveness in claim 4, and the third state of attentiveness corresponding to a higher level of attentiveness of the user than the first state of attentiveness in claim 5.
However these differences are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. The method would be performed the same regardless of which order of the red, yellow, green colors are used to for each motion detection scenario and corresponding state of attentiveness. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Jorasch to illuminate the yellow LEDs when the motion sensor detects a decrease in motion and the second state of attentiveness corresponding to a higher level of attentiveness of the user than the first state of attentiveness and to illuminate the green LEDs when the motion sensor does not detect motion and the third state attentiveness corresponding to a higher level of attentiveness of the user than the first state of attentiveness because these color designations are merely a design choice that does not functionally relate to the steps claimed and has not been disclosed to solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose which does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Jorasch teaches (claim 7) the method as recited in claim 6, further comprising illuminating LEDs located along the frame of the motion sensitive eyeglasses when decreased motion is detected by the motion sensor, the yellow LEDs indicating a second state of attentiveness of the user (Jorasch, para. 484, “Engagement may refer to one or more behaviors of an attendee as described herein. Such behaviors may include paying attention, focusing, making contributions to a discussion, performing a role (e.g., keeping notes), staying on topic, building upon the ideas of others, interacting with others in the meeting, or to any other behavior of interest. In some embodiments, headset 4000 or camera 4100 may provide data that informs the determining of an engagement level (e.g. detection of head drooping down, eyes closing, snoring sounds).” Para. 2217, “communication of the users status could take the form of light, motion, or sound from the user's headset. For example, the ear coverings of the headset could contain one or more LED lights”; para. 2445, “Devices according to various embodiments could allow an AI module to be trained that predicts the device owner's engagement level, mood, and level of alertness or attention.”).
Jorasch teaches (claim 8) the method as recited in claim 6, further comprising illuminating LEDs located along the motion sensitive device when no motion is detected by the motion sensor, the green LEDs indicating a third state of attentiveness of the user (Jorasch, para. 484, “Engagement may refer to one or more behaviors of an attendee as described herein. Such behaviors may include paying attention, focusing, making contributions to a discussion, performing a role (e.g., keeping notes), staying on topic, building upon the ideas of others, interacting with others in the meeting, or to any other behavior of interest. In some embodiments, headset 4000 or camera 4100 may provide data that informs the determining of an engagement level (e.g. detection of head drooping down, eyes closing, snoring sounds).” Para. 2217, “communication of the users status could take the form of light, motion, or sound from the user's headset. For example, the ear coverings of the headset could contain one or more LED lights”; para. 2445, “Devices according to various embodiments could allow an AI module to be trained that predicts the device owner's engagement level, mood, and level of alertness or attention.”).
While Jorasch teaches using a red, yellow, green visual alert scheme (identified above) to distinguish between user states, Jorasch does not explicitly teach which LED color is used for each motion detection scenario in claims 7 and 8, the second state of attentiveness corresponding to a higher level of attentiveness of the user than the first state of attentiveness in claim 7, and the third state of attentiveness corresponding to a higher level of attentiveness of the user than the first state of attentiveness in claim 8.
However these differences are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. The method would be performed the same regardless of which order of the red, yellow, green colors are used to for each motion detection scenario and corresponding state of attentiveness. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Jorasch to illuminate the yellow LEDs when decreased motion of the user’s head is detected by the motion sensor and the second state of attentiveness corresponding to a higher level of attentiveness of the user than the first state of attentiveness and to illuminate the green LEDs when no motion of the user’s head is detected by the motion sensor and the third state attentiveness corresponding to a higher level of attentiveness of the user than the first state of attentiveness because these color designations are merely a design choice that does not functionally relate to the steps claimed and has not been disclosed to solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose which does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the IDS have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While Applicant’s updated IDS is appreciated, it does not follow the latest Office guidance as identified above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the specification objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amendments to the specification obviate the objections. Thus, these objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections claims 1-8 under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jorasch et al. (US 11,128,636, US 2021/0373676, US 2021/0374391, and US 2021/0400142) are closely related to the Jorasch reference used in the rejections above.
Johns et al. (US 2010/0134761 and US 7,815,311 B2) disclose alertness sensing eyeglasses.
Dingli et al. (US 2021/0213960) discloses analyzing head motion to determine alertness and providing visual alerts with light.
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 DANIEL LANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:30 MT.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/DANIEL LANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights