DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Examiner has reviewed the prior art disclosed in the Information Disclosure Statements of 12/13/24 and 07/19/24 of which comprises a search report from the European Patent Office. After careful consideration of the rationale presented in search report, the Examiner has declared that the cited prior art, although applicable, does not adequately disclose all of the claim limitations as required by 35 USC 102 or 103. The cited prior art does not particularly disclose nor would it have been obvious to combine prior art to establish the claimed limitations of explicitly generating a segmented watch region comprising a watch case region, a first watch strap region and a second watch strap region while further utilizing such regions in the rendering of a textured 3D watch object in an augmented reality display.
Priority
This application claims the benefit of application no. 63/515,882 filed 07/27/2023.
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.
Claims 7 and 16 are 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.
In reference to claims 7 and 16, these claims comprise the limitations of “adjusting thickness values of…the 3D mesh” (see for example lines 8, 11 and 14 of claim 7) of which the Examiner deems as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim that which Applicant regards as the invention. In particular, it is unclear as to what is meant by “thickness” in the context of a “3D mesh” as one of ordinary skill in the art would normally know meshes, wireframes, etc. to comprise of “depth” and not “thickness.” The Examiner wonders if such choice of words is a result of some foreign translation output in an alternate version of the claims? Nonetheless, the Examiner deems the claimed wording to be indefinite since it fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim that which Applicant regards as the invention. The Examiner suggests a revision to the term or further explanation within the claim language as to what exactly is meant by “thickness” in the context of “3D meshes.” (see Response to Arguments below)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 17 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 04/08/26, with respect to the 35 USC 112 rejection of claims 9 and 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112 rejection of these claims has been withdrawn since amendments remedy the previous issues.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/08/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In reference to claims 7 and 16, Applicant argues that the 35 USC 112 rejection be reconsidered on the grounds that the “thickness” limitation of these claims is different than “depth” and thus the limitation in question “adjusting thickness values of…the 3D mesh” does not render the claims indefinite (see pages 17-18 of Applicant’s Remarks). In response, the Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s Remarks seem to be solely directed to defining the difference between the term in question “thickness” and “depth” which is found in another dependent claim (claim 4) while further providing a definition of the limitation in question which the Examiner cannot find within the specification. The Examiner acknowledges that having some sort of “thickness value” in a “3D mesh” is a well-known term in the art of computer graphics/computer-aided design however, it is unclear as to what exactly is being quantized or represented by such “thickness value.” For example, one of ordinary skill in the art might refer to the “thickness” as an “extruded mesh value” or conversely a “width of a wireframe line.” The issues arises in that neither the specification or drawings explicitly or even implicitly infer as to which/what is meant by the term in question. Thus, the Examiner deems the claims indefinite for failing to particularly point out that which Applicant regards as the invention. To remedy such issues, the Examiner requests amendments to claims 7 and 16 in line with that which is supported by specification or the cancellation of such limitations from the claims. The 35 USC 112 rejection of claims 7 and 16 however, is maintained herein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 8-15 and 17-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In reference to claims 1, 10 and 19, the Examiner makes note of a term/concept which, in combination and integration with the other limitations of the claims, is seen as the major novel aspect of the invention and which was not found in the prior art of record. The Examiner makes note of the term/concept generating a segmented watch region comprising a watch case region, a first watch strap region and a second watch strap region while further utilizing such regions in the rendering of a textured 3D watch object in an augmented reality display, in combination with the further limitations of the claims respectively.
In reference to claims 2-6, 8-9, 11-15, 17, 18 and 20, these claims depend upon allowable claims 1, 10 and 19 respectively and are therefore also deemed allowable.
Claims 7 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 Antonio Caschera whose telephone number is (571) 272-7781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday between 6:30 AM and 2:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Said Broome, can be reached at (571) 272-2931.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Mail Stop ____________
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to:
571-273-8300 (Central Fax)
See the listing of “Mail Stops” at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/mail.jsp and include the appropriate designation in the address above.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/Antonio A Caschera/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
5/1/26
Prosecution Insights