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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This action responds to the application 18/742,324 filed on 06-13-2024. Claims 1-10 are pending.
Double Patenting
3. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
4. Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,223. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, the current (18/742,324) claim limitations are broader than claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,223 as shown in the table below.
Instant Application No. 18/742,324
US PAT. 12,039,223
A head-mountable information processing apparatus worn on a user's head, the head-mountable information processing apparatus comprising: a display configured to display information to the user; an audio output interface configured to generate an output audio signal, convert the generated output audio signal into an audio for output, and emit the audio for output toward the user; a sensor configured to detect a state of the user; and processing circuitry, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: determine whether or not the state of the user is a state suitable for hearing the audio for output based on a detection result of the sensor, and based on a determination result of the state of the user, control the audio output interface to perform sound emission when determining that the state is suitable for hearing the audio for output, and instruct the audio output interface to interrupt sound emission when determining that the state is not suitable for hearing the audio for output.
1. A head-mountable information processing apparatus worn on a user's head and having a function for viewing images or hearing audio, the head-mountable information processing apparatus comprising: an audio input interface worn in the vicinity of the user's ear, and being configured to collect ambient sound that occurs outside the head-mountable information processing apparatus and enters the ear, and convert the ambient sound into an input audio signal; an audio output interface configured to generate an output audio signal, convert the generated output audio signal into an audio for output, and emit the audio for output toward the user, and a controller configured to control an operation of the head-mountable information processing apparatus, wherein the controller is configured to: based on a volume level of the input audio signal from the audio input interface and a volume level of the output audio signal from the audio output interface, determine whether a state in which the ambient sound is preventing the audio for output from being heard is occurring, upon determining that a state in which the ambient sound is not preventing the audio for output from being heard is occurring, cause the audio output interface to perform sound emission, upon determining that the state in which the ambient sound is preventing the audio for output from being heard is occurring, instruct the audio output interface to interrupt sound emission, and after the audio output interface is instructed to interrupt sound emission, upon determining that the state in which the ambient sound is not preventing the audio for output from being heard is occurring, instruct the audio output interface to resume sound emission after a predetermined period according to the volume level of the input audio signal immediately prior to the state in which the ambient sound is not preventing the audio for output from being heard is occurring has passed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1- 6, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a (2) as being anticipated by Lovitt (US 2018/0324539).
Consider Claim 1, Lovitt teaches a head-mountable information processing apparatus worn on a user's head, the head-mountable information processing apparatus(see figs.1-2) comprising:
a display(see figs. 2-4 and abstract) configured to display information to the user; an audio output interface configured to generate an output audio signal, convert the generated output audio signal into an audio for output, and emit the audio for output toward the user;
a sensor(see fig.3) configured to detect a state of the user; and processing circuitry, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: determine whether or not the state of the user is a state suitable for hearing the audio for output based on a detection result of the sensor(see figs. 2-7 and paragraphs[0025]-[0041])., and
based on a determination result of the state of the user, control the audio output interface to perform sound emission when determining that the state is suitable for hearing the audio for output, and instruct the audio output interface to interrupt sound emission when determining that the state is not suitable for hearing the audio for output(see figs. 2-7 and paragraphs[0041]-[0058])
Consider Claims 2 and 3, Lovitt teaches the head-mountable information processing apparatus wherein the processing circuitry is configured to, when determining that the state is suitable for hearing the audio for output after instructing the audio output interface to interrupt sound emission, instruct the audio output interface to resume sound emission, and in response to the resume instruction, the audio output interface resumes sound emission by going back to a point prior to interrupt(see figs. 2-7 and paragraphs[0025]-[0041]); and the head-mountable information processing apparatus wherein the audio output interface resumes sound emission by going back to a beginning of a sentence that was interrupted(see figs. 2-7 and paragraphs[0025]-[0041]).
Consider Claims 4 and 5, Lovitt teaches the head-mountable information processing apparatus wherein the information includes virtual space information or real space information(see figs. 2-7 and paragraphs[0021]-[0041]); and the head-mountable information processing apparatus wherein the sensor is an eye gaze sensor configured to detect the user's eye gaze, and based on a detection result of the eye gaze sensor, if the user is considered to be paying attention to the virtual space information or the real space information on the display, or if the user is considered to be making rapid eye movement, or if the user is considered to be not clearly conscious, the processing circuitry is configured to determine that the state is not suitable for hearing the audio for output(see figs. 2-7 and paragraphs[0021]-[0041])...
Consider Claims 6 and 8, Lovitt teaches the head-mountable information processing apparatus wherein the sensor is at least one of an angular velocity sensor, a gyro sensor or a geomagnetic sensor configured to detect a movement of the user's head, and the processing circuitry is configured to determine that the state is not suitable for hearing the audio for output when determining that the user's head is moving significantly based on a detection result of the at least one of the angular velocity sensor, the gyro sensor or the geomagnetic sensor(see figs. 2-7 and paragraphs[0021]-[0041]); and the head-mountable information processing apparatus wherein the sensor is a vocal sound microphone configured to collect vocal sound from the user and convert the vocal sound into an audio signal, and the processing circuitry is configured to determine that the state is not suitable for hearing the audio for output when determining that the user is having a conversation with another person based on the audio signal from the vocal sound microphone(see figs. 2-7 and paragraphs[0021]-[0041]).
Consider Claim 10, Lovitt teaches the head-mountable information processing apparatus wherein the processing circuitry is configured to control a sound emission operation for the output audio signal from a voice assistant that responds to the user's request via voice interaction with the user(see figs. 2-7 and paragraphs[0021]-[0041]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 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.
9. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
10. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
11. Claim 7 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lovitt (US 2018/0324539).in view of Provenzano (US 2018/0103859).
Consider claim 7, Lovitt does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor is a heart rate sensor configured to detect the user's heart rate, or a blood pressure sensor configured to detect blood pressure, and the processing circuitry is configured to determine that the state is not suitable for hearing the audio for output when determining that a temporal rate of change of the user's heart rate or blood pressure is greater than or equal to a predetermined reference value based on a detection result of the heart rate sensor or the blood pressure sensor.
However, Provenzano teaches wherein the sensor is a heart rate sensor configured to detect the user's heart rate, or a blood pressure sensor configured to detect blood pressure, and the processing circuitry is configured to determine that the state is not suitable for hearing the audio for output when determining that a temporal rate of change of the user's heart rate or blood pressure is greater than or equal to a predetermined reference value based on a detection result of the heart rate sensor or the blood pressure sensor(see figs. 3-5 and paragraphs[0016]-[0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaching of Provenzano into the teaching of Lovitt to provide an bracelet wearable by a user on a wrist of the user. The bracelet comprises a processor communicatively coupled to an information device of a medical care facility, wherein the information device is constructed to receive and store vital sign information for a plurality of patients of the medical care facility. The processor is constructed to request and receive vital sign information from the information device.
12. Claim 9 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lovitt (US 2018/0324539).in view of Sacks et al. (US PAT. 10,713,923).
Consider claim 9, Lovitt does not explicitly teach the head-mountable information processing wherein the sensor is a peripheral object detection sensor configured to detect an object present in the user's surroundings, and the processing circuitry is configured to determine that the state is not suitable for hearing the audio for output when determining that an approaching object is present within a certain range around the user based on a detection result of the peripheral object detection sensor, and instruct the audio output interface to emit a warning sound indicating danger toward the user.
However, Sacks teaches the head-mountable information processing wherein the sensor is a peripheral object detection sensor configured to detect an object present in the user's surroundings, and the processing circuitry is configured to determine that the state is not suitable for hearing the audio for output when determining that an approaching object is present within a certain range around the user based on a detection result of the peripheral object detection sensor, and instruct the audio output interface to emit a warning sound indicating danger toward the user(see figs. 1A-7 and col.6, line 29-col. 9, line, 67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaching of Sacks into the teaching of Lovitt to provide a user with a way to prevent the loss or misplacement of their eyeglass frames (or other item) in the situation in which the eyeglasses (or other item) has been taken off and placed on a table, or otherwise left behind, etc. Embodiments of the invention incorporate a wireless communications technology, such as a Bluetooth module or similar functional module that is embedded into the eyeglass frame during manufacture and is therefore an integral part of the frame. In the case of an item other than eyeglass frames, the Bluetooth module may be embedded into a clasp, link, setting, or a part of a device (such as a laptop computer).
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Kato et al.(US 2015/0130702) is cited to show other HEAD-MOUNTABLE INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS.
14. Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Mail Stop ____(explanation, e.g., Amendment or After-final, etc.)
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Facsimile responses should be faxed to:
(571) 273-8300
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Lao,Lun-See whose telephone number is (571) 272-7501 The examiner
can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 to 5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
supervisor, Nguyen Duc M, can be reached on (571) 272-7503.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding
should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/LUN-SEE LAO/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2651 Patent Examiner
US Patent and Trademark Office
Knox
571-272-7501
Date 02-29-2026