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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 15 utilize the term “such as” and it is unclear if the limitations which follow are part of the claim or not.
Claim 3 should indicate that the type of glasses is one of.Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2)as being anticipated by US 2021/0088810 A1 to Adams et al.
Regarding claim 1, Adams discloses a smart eyewear device that transforms any type of eyewear into smart glasses (abstract figure 1b), the smart eyewear device comprising:
at least one arm component (figure 1b, 0018, 0032 the arms are removeable/upgradable) ; and a Bluetooth technology (0039, Bluetooth interface 315 connects to a mobile device which may be a mobile phone); wherein the at least one arm component is secured to a conventional eyeglass frame at a temple of the eyeglass frame to configure a pair of eyeglasses (figure 1b shows an arm connected to a frame) ; wherein the Bluetooth technology enables wireless communications when listening to music or talking on a cell phone while wearing the configured pair of eyeglasses (0039, 0051, the user can pause the music player);
and further wherein the at least one arm component is integrated with communication features for sending and receiving signals wirelessly to and from an electronic device such as a cell phone (0039, Bluetooth interface 315 connects to a mobile phone).
Regarding claim 2, Adams discloses , wherein there are two arm components each equipped with Bluetooth technology and secured at a temple of a lens frame (0045, the Bluetooth interface can be embedded in one or both of the arms), and wherein the lens frame holds lenses for vision correction or eye protection and is configured as a pair of eyeglasses (as the frames cover the eyes, they provide some degree of eye protection).
Claim 20 substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 1 and is addressed above.
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) 3-15, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0088810 A1 to Adams et al in view of US 2022/0357599A1 to Howell et al.
Regarding claim 3, Adams discloses in 0004 that some smart glasses are able to change tint by electronic means, but Adams does not specifically disclose, wherein the pair of eyeglasses are prescription eyeglasses, readers, spectacles, protective goggles, sunglasses, face shields or face masks.
Howell discloses in 14b an arm 1421 that can be used a s are placement arm so as to convert a standard pair of eyeglasses that can exploit tethered electrical components for wireless communications (0282). Howell further discloses that the eyewear can be prescription glasses, safety glasses, swim masks or goggles (0255).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Adam’s glasses to utilize a variety of lenses types including prescription, bi-focals, sunglasses, fit over glasses and the like (0255) to provide a variety of lens types for myriad occasions as users typically wear glasses for a specific purpose such as to read, drive, or not be blinded by the sun.
Regarding claim 4, Adams discloses in figure 3b wherein the two arm components (0045, some of the components 311-321 can be places in one arm or both arms) each comprise a microphone (microphone 320, 0042), a transmitter (Bluetooth module 315), a speaker 311 (0038), a receiver (Bluetooth module 315), and a power source (battery 312 0038), all mounted within the two arm components (figure 3b).
Regarding claim 5, Adams discloses a microphone 320 contained in an arm (see claim 4 as addressed above) and receives a voice input (Adams claim 11), the Examiner further notes that the claims language is conditional as to being oriented towards a user’s moth and directionality and picking up ambient sound and is not affirmatively recited.
Adams discloses the use of Bluetooth but does not specifically state that the sounds from the users mouth are transmitted to a cell phone.
The Examiner takes official notice that the use of Bluetooth enabled microphone to transmit sounds from a speaker to a user’s mouth is notoriously well known in the art. Bluetooth enabled microphones allow for high sound fidelity as they are near a user’s mouth and allow for a user to communicate via their phone while keeping it in their pocket.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the microphone in the Bluetooth enabled glasses that connects to a user’s mobile phone as taught by Adams and Howell, to have the user’s voice be transmitted to the user’s phone via Bluetooth for the advantages of providing high fidelity sound without requiring the user to take their phone out of their pocket to receive the sound.
Regarding claim 6, in figure 3b Adams discloses wherein the transmitter is mounted to the two arm components and communicates with the microphone by wire, optic fiber, or wirelessly, the transmitter is configured to send signals to the cell phone.
Regarding claim 7, see the speakers in figure 3b that are oriented towards the user’s ear, and thus Adams discloses wherein the speaker is mounted to the two arm components for playing sounds to be heard by the user's ear, the speaker is oriented toward the user's ear and can be directional so that it plays sounds toward the user's ear but does not play sounds that can be easily heard by bystanders.
Regarding claim 8, Adams discloses a Bluetooth module 315 and thus teaches:
wherein the receiver is mounted to the two arm components and communicates with the speaker by wire, optic fiber, or wirelessly, and is configured to receive signals from the cell phone.
Regarding claim 9, Adams in figure 3b discloses a battery 312 (0038) that powers the Bluetooth modules and thus teaches:
wherein the power source is mounted to the two arm components and is electrically connected by a wire to the transmitter and the receiver.
Regarding claim 10, Adams discloses that a lithium battery can be charged by a USBC interface and thus teaches:
wherein the power source is at least one rechargeable battery.
Regarding claim 11-12, Howell is relied upon to teach that the arms can be replaceable as part of a retrofit onto conventional glasses (0282) and thus are independent of the smart eyewear device and can be attached to other frames.
Regarding claim 13, Adams discloses that there can be a speaker in each arm, but is not specific about stereo sound.
Howell discloses at 0338 that there can be at least one speaker at each temple which can generate stereo effects.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Adam’s 2 speakers to utilize stereo sonic sound effects as taught by Howell for the advantages of providing high fidelity audio with an aesthetically pleasing experience for the user (0552).
Regarding claim 14, Adams discloses at 0045 that some of the components 311-321 can be places in one arm or both arms, and thus discloses that the Bluetooth technology can be in either one of the left or right-side arm.
Claim 15 substantially corresponds to claim 10 as addressed above, Furthermore, the use of “such as” with respect to the various types of buttons renders it unclear if these elements are to be considered part of the claim or not. None the less, at 0556, Howell discloses using different buttons on the glasses for a preference button, as well as in figure 60, push buttons, control knobs, up and down buttons etc. (0560-0566) for use as up/down controllers, answering calls, volume up/down, off/on etc.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Adams to utilize the buttons of Howell to provide a number of buttons that can serve different functions depending on the application (Howell 0567).
Regarding claim 17, Howell is relied upon to teach the use of voice prompts (0769), and audio output as indicators (0245).
Regarding claim 18, Adams doesn’t specify the use of sensors instead of control buttons.
Howell discloses the use of touch sensors that use capactative effects instead of buttons at 0749.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize sensors instead of buttons to provide seamless arms instead of buttons protruding outwards for a better aesthetic.
Claim(s) 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0088810 A1 to Adams et al in view of US 2022/0357599A1 to Howell et al in further view of US 2019/0305567 A1 to Keeley et al.
Regarding claim 16 and 19, Howell discloses the use of LEDs as status indicators, but neither does Howell nor Adams doesn’t specifically disclose the use of status indicators by the display and timing of red, amber and green LEDs.
Keeley discloses a wireless charging system for sports equipment and games devices (abstract). More specifically Keeley discloses a number of ways in which blinking LEDS, and different colours can be used to indicate a charging status and the alignment of the battery with respect to the charging system (0036-40, 0059).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the combination of Adams and Howells LEDs as status indicators to utilize the red, amber and green LEDs and timing features as taught by Keeley for the advantage of indicating the charging status of a battery and alignment of the device with the charger in an easily recognizable way.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER B LONSBERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-7298. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, TC Director James Trammell can be reached at 571-272-6712. 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.
HUNTER B. LONSBERRY
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665