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 3/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the gesture of Minami requires physical contact unlike how “gesture” is defined in the Applicant’s Specification. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s Specification merely states that it is ‘understood’ that a gesture does not involve physical contact (Specification: 0033). In fact, the Examiner submits that touchscreen inputs such as tapping and dragging are understood as types of gestures (see, https://www.tenforums.com/tutorials/4202-touch-gestures-windows-10-a.html). Therefore, the Examiner maintains the position that interacting with a button on a touchscreen such as that of Minami (Minami: 0024) is the equivalent to “the selectively transparent layer being gesture controlled” as presently claimed.
The Examiner suggests, the claim further defining the “gesture” to require no physical contact.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 14, 15, 18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Minami et al. (PGPUB Document No. US 2017/0277136).
Regarding claim 14, Minami teaches a watch, comprising:
A selectively transparent front layer (display screen 22a (Minami: 0023, FIG.1B). Among the two stacked display screens 22a and 12a, the CPU can control which display to be seen as illustrated in FIG.3A-D (Minami: 0052). This corresponds to the layer being selectively transparent);
A selectively transparent second layer behind the selectively transparent front layer (display screen 12a (Minami: 0023, FIG.1B))
A retention device for temporarily coupling the selectively transparent front layer and the selectively transparent second layer to a wearer’s wrist (“the smart watch 100 is a wrist mounting type electronic device in which a watch body 1 is mounted around user's wrist by using a band 2” (Minami: 0021, FIG.1A));
And a controller in communication with the selectively transparent front layer and the selectively transparent second layer, the controller causing content to be selectively displayed for viewing, the selectively transparent front layer being gesture controlled (microcomputers controlling the selective display of display screens 22a and 12a (Minami: 0052)).
Regarding claim 15, Minami teaches the watch of claim 14, further comprising a watch face behind the selectively transparent second layer (refer to the watch face shown on display screen 12a behind display screen 22a (Minami: FIG.1B).
16. The watch of claim 14, wherein:
The selectively transparent front layer includes a first item selected from the group consisting of an LCD panel, an OLED panel, an LCOS panel, and a smart glass panel (segment type monochrome liquid crystal display (Minami: 0025));
The selectively transparent second layer includes a second item selected from the group consisting of an LCD panel, an OLED panel, an LCOS panel, and a smart glass panel (LCD screen (Minami: 0025));
And the first item is different from the second item (refer to the different display screens stated in the rejection above).
Regarding claim 18, Minami teaches the watch of claim 14, further comprising a sensor, and wherein the controller alters at least one item selected from the group consisting of the selectively transparent front layer and the selectively transparent second layer based on at least one input from the sensor (second display unit 22 comprising a touch sensor that receives user operation).
Regarding claim 21, Minami teaches the watch of claim 20, further comprising a watch face behind the selectively transparent second layer (refer to the watch face shown behind second display unit 22a as shown in FIG.1B).
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) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minami as applied to the claim(s) above, and further in view of Olwal et al. (PGPUB Document No. US 2019/0324404).
Regarding claim 19, Minami does not expressly teach but Olwal teaches the watch of claim 18, wherein the sensor comprises a biometric sensor (Olwal teaches a smart watch comprising a skin temperature sensor, a heart rate monitor, an oximetry sensor to measure blood oxygen levels, and a galvanic skin response sensor to determine exertion levels (Olwal: 0038)).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to modify the smart watch of Minami such as to include the sensors taught by Olwal, because this enables an added number of functionalities to the smart watch.
Regarding claim 20, Minami does not expressly teach but Olwal teaches the watch of claim 18, wherein the sensor is selected from the group consisting of a camera, an infrared sensor, an acoustic sensor, a biometric sensor (skin temperature sensor, a heart rate monitor, an oximetry sensor to measure blood oxygen levels, and a galvanic skin response sensor to determine exertion levels (Olwal: 0038)), an environmental sensor (barometric pressure sensor, an ambient temperature sensor (Olwal: 0038)), and a GPS device (GPS (Olwal: 0040)).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to modify the smart watch of Minami such as to include the sensors taught by Olwal, because this enables an added number of functionalities to the smart watch.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 are allowed. Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 H Chu whose telephone number is (571)272-8079. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 - 1:30pm, 3:30-8:30pm.
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, Daniel F Hajnik can be reached at (571) 272-7642. 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 H CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights