FINAL REJECTION
Examiner’s Remarks
Regarding the amendment filed 3/17/2026:
The amendment to claims 1 and 12 are acknowledged and accepted.
The cancelation of claims 4-7 and 11 is acknowledged and accepted.
The amendment to the specification is acknowledged and accepted.
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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the amendment to the abstract is not on a separate sheet.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Also see MPEP 714(II)(B) which recites “Whether supplying a marked-up version of a previous abstract or a clean form new abstract, the abstract must comply with 37 CFR 1.72(b) regarding the length and placement of the abstract on a separate sheet of paper”.
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 10 is 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.
Claim 10 recites “ the mounting apparatus...configured to secure the wearable computing device to the forearm”. Claim 1 recites “A wearable computing device comprising...a mounting apparatus”, which implies a mounting apparatus is part of the wearable computing device. Therefore, regarding claim 10, it is unclear how the mounting apparatus secures the wearable computing device to the forearm if the mounting apparatus is already part of/a component of the wearable computing device. Please clarify. Does the applicant mean that the mounting device secures itself to the forearm via straps? Or does the applicant mean the wearable computing device comprises a computing device where the mounting device secures the computing device to the forearm? Or does the applicant intend that the wearable computing device only comprise the imaging device and display, and that the mounting apparatus is a separate component from the wearable computing device? If so, it appear that claim 1 would be a system/apparatus comprising (a) a wearable computing device and (b) a mounting apparatus, and not a wearable computing device itself that includes the mounting apparatus. Please clarify. For examination purposes, the claim language will be interpreted as the mounting apparatus has straps to secure itself to the forearm.
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, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schultz (5,305,181).
With respect to claim 1, Schultz discloses a wearable computing device, comprising:
an imaging device (16), defining an imaging direction, wherein the imaging direction is a central axis of a field of view of the imaging device (col. 4, lines 4-9; Figs. 2 and 7)
a display (15), defining a normal direction of the display which is configured to face eyes of a user (inherent to the display inclined upwards towards the user) (col. 4, lines 2-3; Figs. 1, 2, 6 and 7 ); and
a mounting apparatus (32), configured to interface with a forearm of a user (Figs. 7-9) (forearm includes entire arm below elbow, thus includes fingers, as defined by Oxford Online Dictionary);
wherein the imaging direction and the normal direction, are offset by a first predetermined angle (A1), where A1 is non-orthogonal (e.g. angle between normal direction of display 15 (see Figs. 1 and 2) and horizontal imaging axis directed to barcode 38 in Fig. 7).
With respect to claims 8 and 9, Schultz discloses the imaging device comprises a camera (CCD) or an optical scanner (laser) (col. 4, lines 4-5).
Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Blevins (US 5,272,324).
With respect to claim 1, Blevins discloses a wearable computing device, comprising:
an imaging device (26), defining an imaging direction, wherein the imaging direction is a central axis of a field of view of the imaging device (col. 3, lines 31-32; Fig. 1) (see interpretation below);
a display (24), defining a normal direction of the display which is configured to face eyes of a user (col. 3, lines 18-21; col. 4, lines 40-41; Fig. 1); and
a mounting apparatus (sleeve), configured to interface with a forearm of a user (col. 2, lines 59-64; Fig. 1) (see interpretation below); and
wherein the imaging direction and the normal direction, are offset by a first predetermined angle (A1), where A1 is non-orthogonal (e.g. angle between normal direction of display 24 and horizontal imaging axis directed to barcode 45 in Fig. 1) (see interpretation below).
PNG
media_image1.png
319
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 9, Blevins discloses the imaging device comprises an optical scanner (col. 3, lines 31-37)
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blevins as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kumar (US 5,294,782).
With respect to claims 2 and 3, Blevins addresses all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Blevins fails to expressly disclose A1 is selected from a range defined between 110 degrees and 115 degrees, and wherein A1 is 112 degrees.
Kumar teaches it is well known in the art for a display of a barcode reader to be angled at an incline so that the display is viewable to an operator when using the barcode scanner, where the incline can be about 30 degrees or any other value (col. 4, lines 41-44; col. 7, lines 35-42).
It would have it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the predetermined angle A1 to be a range defined between 110 degrees and 115 degrees, and wherein A1 is 112 degrees, in order to provide a desired display angle for an operator. While Blevins fails to expressly disclose the claimed ranges/specific angle values, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine suitable display angles through routine or manipulative experimentation to obtain the best possible results, as these are variable parameters attainable within the art. Moreover, generally, differences in angles will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such angles is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Applicants have not demonstrated any unexpected or unusual results, which accrue from the instant angle ranges. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blevins as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Becker (US 5,808,289).
With respect to claim 8, Blevins addresses all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Blevins fails to expressly disclose the imaging device comprises a camera.
Becker teaches it is well known in the art for an imaging device of a wearable computing device to comprise an optical scanner (laser scanner) or a camera (CCD imaging reader) (col. 6, lines 53-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imaging device of Blevins to be a camera in order to be able to image a barcode.
Claim(s) 10, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blevins as applied to claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 10, Blevins addresses all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Blevins fails to expressly disclose, in a same embodiment, the mounting apparatus comprises straps configured to secure the wearable computing device to the forearm.
Blevins teaches an embodiment where a mounting apparatus comprising straps (61) secure a wearable computing device to a forearm (col. 2, lines 8-11; col. 4, lines 44-58; Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try to modify the mounting apparatus to comprise straps configured to secure the wearable computing device to the forearm, in order to provide an alternative means of attaching the wearable computing device to a user’s forearm to allow people with different sized forearms can easily adjust the mounting apparatus to wear the wearable computing device.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blevins in view of Kumar.
With respect to claim 12, Blevins discloses a wearable computing device, comprising:
an imaging device (26), defining an imaging direction (col. 3, lines 31-32; Fig. 1) (see interpretation below); and
a display (24), defining a normal direction of the display which is configured to face eyes of a user (col. 3, lines 18-21; col. 4, lines 40-41; Fig. 1) (see interpretation below).
PNG
media_image1.png
319
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Blevins fails to expressly disclose the imaging direction and the normal direction are offset by 112 degrees.
Kumar teaches it is well known in the art for a display of a barcode reader to be angled at an incline so that the display is viewable to an operator when using the barcode scanner, where the incline can be about 30 degrees or any other value (col. 4, lines 41-44; col. 7, lines 35-42).
It would have it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imaging direction and the normal direction to be offset by 112 degrees, in order to provide a desired display angle for an operator. While Blevins fails to expressly disclose the specific angle value, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine suitable angles through routine or manipulative experimentation to obtain the best possible results, as these are variable parameters attainable within the art. Moreover, generally, differences in angles will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such angle is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Applicants have not demonstrated any unexpected or unusual results, which accrue from the instant angle. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 8-10 and 12 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection in view of the amendment to claims 1 and 12 (removal of “when projected onto a reference plane parallel to both the imaging direction and the normal direction”).
In view of the removal of the limitation “when projected onto a reference plane parallel to both the imaging direction and the normal direction” in claims 1 and 12, the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections regarding this limitation has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues that the previous “as best understood” statement that the angle is non-orthogonal is a concession that the references do not expressly teach this feature. The examiner notes that the “as best understood” is based on the examiner’s interpretation of the drawings, and that the limitation was also interpreted to not include the now deleted limitation of the reference plane. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As such, based on the examiner’s interpretation, the predetermined angle is considered to be non-orthogonal since based on the examiner’s interpretation of the predetermined angle, the predetermined angle is considered to be an obtuse angle. Therefore the applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
The applicant additionally argues that Schultz nor Blevins recognizes the ergonomic problem of repetitive supination and pronation of the arm, and thus they do not teach or suggest using a specific, non-orthogonal angle for the purpose of allowing a user to simultaneously view a display and operate an image without strenuous wrist movement. It is noted that rationale different from the applicant’s is permissible. See MPEP 2144. Therefore the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, the applicant points to Table 1 to demonstrate criticality of the 112 degree angle, more specifically, the 22 degree angle between the imaging direction and the plane of the display. The examiner respectfully disagrees that this demonstrates criticality of the orientation degree. Unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. Merely showing two data points is not considered to demonstrate unexpected results, nor is considered to be commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. It has been held that the “the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range.” In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). As such, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained. The examiner further notes that claim 2 describes a range for the predetermined angle, and the Table merely only shows an angle of 90 degrees (0 degree between the imaging direction and the plane of the display) and 112 degrees (22 degrees between the imaging direction and the plane of the display). The Table does not include a data point beyond the 112 degrees. As such, the Table is not in commensurate with the scope of claim 2.
The examiner notes that the 35 USC 112(b) rejection to claim 10 has not been addressed. As such, this rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
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.
Telephone/Fax Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUEZU ELLIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2868. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11:00 am - 7:00 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, Michael Lee can be reached at (571)272-2398. 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.
/SUEZU ELLIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights