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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on the application filed on August 5th, 2021 (IT 102021000021212). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated February 5th, 2024 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
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 14-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 14, as well as claims 15-26 generally, the limitation “double capacitive sensor” is unclear and renders the claim(s) indefinite. Specifically, the first recitation of this limitation in the independent claim, and thus the rest of the recitations in various dependent claims, are unclear as it is generally unclear what makes a sensor “double capacitive” in nature. It seems as if it could refer to a single sensor that tracks two different capacitances and measures them against each other, or a sensor with two sub sensors measuring the same capacitance to make a more reliable value, among other things. Accordingly, for the purpose of examining the claims currently pending this limitation will be interpreted to mean “a second capacitive sensor”.
Regarding claims 25-26, the limitations “functionally coupled to a charging port” and “said charging port is a female universal USB-C connector” are unclear and render the claims indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear if the charging port is actually part of the eyeglasses as this appears to be an external element that would be present in a system claim not a device claim. Further, a USB connector is not itself a charging port, it is just an interface for a connector to electrically join two devices. Accordingly, for the purpose of examining the claims currently pending, these limitations will be interpreted to mean “able to be connected to a charging port” and “said charging port is able to interface with said power source”.
Regarding claims 15-25, these claims depend on a rejected base claim and are therefore rejected for at least the reasons stated supra.
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) 14-16, 20, 25, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (2015/0156196 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches electronic eyeglasses (See, e.g., device 1 in Fig. 1) comprising a front and a pair of temples configured to be connected to the front by means of respective hinges (See, e.g., Fig. 1 which shows left and right side arms 30 and 31 as well as the combination of frames 10 and 11 and connector 20 which form the front, note the hinges are not numbered but clearly present to connect the arms and frames), wherein at least one of said temples comprises a capacitive sensor in order to allow to enter an input on the part of a user (See, e.g., paragraphs [0131]-[0135] which explain a user input such as putting the glasses on may be tracked by a capacitive sensor, i.e. the response to an authentication success/failure based on the user authentication result), and a double capacitive sensor which is joined thereto and is configured to detect the condition of the eyeglasses being worn or not by the user (See, e.g., paragraph [0128] which explains this and note this limitation is met in light of the 112 rejections above because there is a capacitive sensor) and a haptic feedback component in order to return to the user a notification regarding the input entered or other functionalities of the eyeglasses (See, e.g., paragraphs [0131]-[0135] which explain this).
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein said capacitive sensor and said double capacitive sensor are monolithic (Note insofar as all of these components are connected via the housing or other elements, they are monolithic).
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein said input by a user is of a manual type (Note the cited user input above is necessarily a manual type).
Regarding claim 20, Kim teaches the device set forth above and further teaches a protective containment element for at least one of said temples (Note here the protective containment element is the outer housing of each of the cited arm/temple/front segments in Fig. 1 which house all the various electronics), which is integral with said temples (Note this is necessarily true given the cited containment element) and is configured to support said capacitive sensor, said haptic feedback component and a printed circuit board for driving said haptic sensor, said capacitive sensor and said double capacitive sensor (Note given the construction shown in Fig. 1 and the cited protective containment element this is necessarily true, further note that a circuit board can be used as part of the electronics as explained in paragraph [0105]).
Regarding claim 25, Kim teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein a power source is accommodated on at least one of the temples of the eyeglasses and is functionally coupled to a charging port (See, e.g., paragraph [0103] which explains this in the form of a cradle).
Regarding claim 26, Kim teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein said charging port is a female universal USB-C connector (Note this limitation is met in light of the 112 rejections above because the cited charging port is able to be connected to the device).
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) 19 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (2015/0156196 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Kim teaches the device set forth above and further teaches a least one battery accommodated in at least one of said two temples, said battery being integrated in a body of the temple (See, e.g., power supplier described in paragraph [0104] and note it is necessarily “in” and “integrated in a body” of the temple insofar as all of these elements are connected/enclosed by the housing) but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the battery is accommodated within a same temple that accommodates the double capacitive sensor.
However, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 C.C.P.A. 1950). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the cited battery in the device of Kim to be within the same temple as the double capacitive sensor, for the purpose of optimizing the internal configuration of the physical parts of the device. Note this modification would not change the normal operation of the device as these parts rely on their electrical connection not their physical configuration to operate.
Regarding claim 22, Kim teaches the device set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the double capacitive sensor is arranged in a proximal part of the temple and said double capacitive sensor is arranged at a distal part of the temple.
However, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 C.C.P.A. 1950). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the locations of the claimed elements in the device of Kim to be at the claimed positions relative to each other and the temple, for the purpose of optimizing the internal configuration of the physical parts of the device. Note this modification would not change the normal operation of the device as these parts rely on their electrical connection not their physical configuration to operate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17, 18, 21, 23, and 24 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.
The following is an examiner’s reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 17, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein said double capacitive sensor comprises at least two active areas, one directed toward an inside of the temple, i.e., toward the head of the user who wears the eyeglasses, and at least one other active area directed toward an outside of the temple.
Regarding claim 21, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach a flexible power supply cable configured to be accommodated within the front of said eyeglasses and to pass through said respective hinges, in order to connect to said printed circuit board.
Regarding claim 23, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein said double capacitive sensor is an adherence sensor configured to be glued to the protective containment element, to the battery and to the active area defined by said capacitive sensor so as to form a single part.
Regarding claims 18 and 24, these claims depend on an allowable base claim and are therefore allowable for at least the reasons stated supra.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mitchell Oestreich whose telephone number is (571)270-7559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-11:00 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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/MITCHELL T OESTREICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872