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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention II, drawn to a method of for health information notification of claims 9-15 in the reply filed on 3/25/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the amended claims now have unity of invention because they share a “single inventive concept” due to the “critical specific technical feature that distinguishes the present application from the prior art” of “the temperature sensors disposed on the inner side of the glasses body, with a distance from the user’s skin contact site less than a preset distance” (see page 10 of the response). This is not found persuasive. First, the application is not a 371 national stage entry of the PCT and therefore Unity of Invention does not apply. Second, the standard for whether there is distinctiveness is governed by MPEP 806.05(e), in that it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. That is still true, even with the amended claims, because the apparatus can still be used to practice another and materially different process such as, for example, detecting when the glasses are being worn by a user based on a temperature change from the temperature sensor. Additionally, the distinctiveness between Inventions II and III is still present in view of the amended claims for the same reasoning as that given in the restriction requirement.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 16-20 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 3/25/26.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “of user’s skin” (line 7) appears that it should be “of a user’s skin.”
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “whether user’s body temperature” (line 9) appears that it should be “whether the user’s body temperature.”
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “that user’s body temperature” (line 11) appears that it should be “that the user’s body temperature.”
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “obtaining ambient temperature value” (line 2) appears that it should be “obtaining an ambient temperature value.”
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “on user’s query” (line 5) appears that it should be “on the user’s query.”
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “uploading user’s body temperature values” (line 7) appears that it should be “uploading the user’s body temperature values.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 11-15 is/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.
For claim 11, the claim language “an ambient temperature value measured by the temperature sensor provided on the glasses body” is ambiguous. Claim 9, from which claim 11 depends, recites “temperature sensors … provided on the glasses body,” “obtaining body temperature data measured by the temperature sensors,” and “wherein the temperature sensors are provided on an inner side of the glasses body, with a distance from a contact side of the user’s skin being less than a preset distance.” It appears logically contradictory that the same temperature sensors, which are less than a preset distance from the user’s skin and measure body temperature could also measure ambient temperature. Therefore, the examiner doesn’t understand what the scope of this claim is supposed to be when it appears to contradict itself.
For claim 12, the claim “the UV value” (line 8) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 13, the claim term “the environment” (line 2) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 13, the claim language “uploading user's body temperature values and/or UV values in the environment to a server through the processor, making the sever send current body temperature value and historical body temperature value of the user, and/or current UV value and historical UV value in the environment to the client for display based on user's query operation through the client; or uploading user's body temperature values and/or UV values in the environment to the server through the processor, making the sever respectively analyze whether the uploaded body temperature values within a preset first analysis cycle exceed a preset first body temperature reference value, and/or, whether the uploaded UV values within the preset first analysis cycle exceed a preset first UV reference value; or, whether the uploaded body temperature values within a preset second analysis cycle exceed a preset second body temperature reference value, and/or, whether the uploaded UV values within the preset second analysis cycle exceed a preset second UV reference value, wherein the first body temperature reference value is greater than the second body temperature reference value, and the first UV reference value is greater than the second UV reference value; sending the health warning information and response information to the client when, in the first analysis cycle, the body temperature values exceed the preset first body temperature reference value, and/or, the UV values exceed the preset first UV reference value; or, when, in the second analysis cycle, the body temperature values exceed the preset second body temperature reference value, and/or, if the UV values exceed the preset second UV reference value” is ambiguous. It is unclear what limitations are required and what limitations are in the alternative due to the numerous amount of “and/or” and “or” operators in the claim. The examiner recommends breaking up each alternative clause as a phrase with a semicolon before moving on to the next phrase that has an alternative limitation in it.
For claim 13, the claim term “the health warning information” (line 18) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 14, the claim term “the environment” (line 3) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 14, the claim language “confirming user's current location through the processor and uploading the measured user's body temperature values and/or UV values in the environment to a server, making the server use a preset big data analysis method to determine that: among the preset population in the region, whether a number of people whose body temperature exceeds a preset body temperature warning value exceeds a preset number of people, and/or, whether a number of people whose UV value exceeds a preset UV warning value exceeds a preset number of people; sending the health warning information and response information to the client when, among the preset population in the region, the number of people whose body temperature exceeds the preset body temperature warning value exceeds the preset number of people, and/or, the number of people whose UV value exceeds the preset UV warning value exceeds the preset number of people” is ambiguous. It is unclear what limitations are required and what limitations are in the alternative due to the numerous amount of “and/or” and “or” operators in the claim. The examiner recommends breaking up each alternative clause as a phrase with a semicolon before moving on to the next phrase that has an alternative limitation in it.
For claim 14, the claim term “the preset population” (line 5) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 14, the claim term “the health warning information” (line 9) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 15, the claim term “the environment” (lines 2-3) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 15, the claim term “the user’s associated users” (line 7) is ambiguous. It is unclear what the metes and bounds of an “associated” user is or not.
Dependent claim(s) 13-15 fail to cure the ambiguity of claim 12, thus claim(s) 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 10-2015-0061766 to Yoon.
For claim 9, Yoon discloses a method for health information notification (Abstract), applied to a pair of smart glasses (as can be seen in Fig. 1) which comprise a glasses body (10, 12, 20, and 30) (Fig. 1), and temperature sensors (34) (Fig. 1) and a processor (50) (Fig. 1) provided on the glasses body (as can be seen in Fig. 1), the processor being electrically coupled with the temperature sensors (para [0043]) (Examiner’s Note: 52 is part of 50, see para [0030]), the method comprising:
obtaining body temperature data measured by the temperature sensors through the processor (para [0039] and [0043]), wherein the temperature sensors are provided on an inner side of the glasses body (as can be seen in Fig. 1), with a distance from a contact site of user's skin being less than a preset distance (para [0040]-[0041]);
determining whether user's body temperature is abnormal through the processor based on the body temperature data (para [0043]-[0044]); and
outputting a notification that user's body temperature is abnormal through the processor when the user's body temperature is abnormal (para [0044]) (also see para [0045]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon in view of CN 112120676 to Mu.
For claim 10, Yoon does not expressly disclose wherein the step of determining whether user's body temperature is abnormal through the processor based on the body temperature data comprises: counting all of the body temperature data measured during a preset period through the processor, removing body temperature data higher than a preset maximum limit or lower than a preset minimum limit, and calculating an average value of remaining body temperature data, wherein it is confirmed that user's body temperature is abnormal when the average value exceeds a preset normal range; or counting all of the body temperature data measured during a preset period through the processor, wherein it is confirmed that user's body temperature is abnormal when a number of times that the body temperature data exceeds the preset normal range is greater than a preset number.
However, Mou teaches wherein the step of determining whether user's body temperature is abnormal through the processor based on the body temperature data comprises: counting all of the body temperature data measured during a preset period through the processor (page 4), removing body temperature data higher than a preset maximum limit or lower than a preset minimum limit (page 4), and calculating an average value of remaining body temperature data (page 4), wherein it is confirmed that user's body temperature is abnormal when the average value exceeds a preset normal range (page 4); or counting all of the body temperature data measured during a preset period through the processor, wherein it is confirmed that user's body temperature is abnormal when a number of times that the body temperature data exceeds the preset normal range is greater than a preset number.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Yoon wherein the step of determining whether user's body temperature is abnormal through the processor based on the body temperature data comprises: counting all of the body temperature data measured during a preset period through the processor, removing body temperature data higher than a preset maximum limit or lower than a preset minimum limit, and calculating an average value of remaining body temperature data, wherein it is confirmed that user's body temperature is abnormal when the average value exceeds a preset normal range; or counting all of the body temperature data measured during a preset period through the processor, wherein it is confirmed that user's body temperature is abnormal when a number of times that the body temperature data exceeds the preset normal range is greater than a preset number, in view of the teachings of Mou, for the obvious advantage of removing noise from the data set to make any diagnosis based on temperature more accurate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 12-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LEE CERIONI whose telephone number is (313) 446-4818. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM PT.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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 L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights