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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants election without traverse of Group I Claims 1-12 & 20 in the reply filed on 4th August 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4th August 2026.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant' s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-12 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites ‘identify the object on a basis of the detected motion’ & Claim 20 recites ‘identifying an object on a basis of the detected motion’, but the claims do not disclose how this is to be done or by what element beyond the ‘wearable electronic device’ performs this limitation. The specification does not disclose any clarity regarding how an object could be identified purely from detected motion. It is not enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the inventor had possession of the invention. Appropriate
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 1-12 & 20 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.
Claims 1 & 20, ‘the identified object’, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim. Examiner notes the limitation should likely read ‘the object’.
Claims 1, 4, 9 & 20, ‘the activated temperature sensor’, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims. Examiner notes the limitation should likely read ‘the temperature sensor’.
Claims 1 & 20, ‘the detected motion’, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim. Examiner notes the limitation should likely read ‘the motion’
Claims 1 & 20, ‘a temperature’, it is unclear if the second iteration of ‘a temperature’ is referring to the first iteration of ‘a temperature’, or if it is a new and distinct instance of ‘a temperature’ being measured.
Claim 1 recites ‘identify the object on a basis of the detected motion’, it is unclear how an object could be identified on a basis of detected motion, rendering claim 1 indefinite.
Claim 3, ‘…wherein the temperature sensor is disposed to be directed to …‘, is awkwardly phrased. It is unclear as to what the temperature is ‘disposed to be’, rendering claim 3 indefinite. Examiner interprets the limitation to read ‘wherein the temperature sensor is configured to be directed to a palm in a closed fist…’
Claim 3, ‘the outside’ there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim.
Claim 4, ‘the identified first value’, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim. Examiner notes the limitation should likely read ‘the first value’.
Claim 8 & 12, ‘the basis’, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims.
Claim 8, ‘the identified object’, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim.
Claim 9, ‘a motion’, it is unclear whether this limitation is referring to ‘a motion’ as previously recited in claim 1 or if it is a new and distinct instance of ‘a motion’, rendering claim 9 indefinite. Examiner interprets the limitation to intend ‘a second motion’, as best understood by the disclosure.
Claims 9-10 & 12, ‘a temperature’, it is unclear if ‘a temperature’ is referring to ‘a temperature’ as previously recited in claim 1, or if it is a new and distinct instance of ‘a temperature’ being measured.
Claims 2-12 are rejected for their dependence on a rejected parent claim.
Claim 20 recites ‘identifying an object on a basis of the detected motion’, it is unclear how an object could be identified on a basis of detected motion, rendering claim 20 indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 2-3 & 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim 2 recites ‘…worn in a state in which the second surface is at least partially in contact with a part of the body.’. Claim 3 recites ‘wherein a part of the body includes a finger, and wherein the temperature sensor is disposed to be directed to a palm in a closed fist and directed toward the outside in an open fist.’. Claim 5 recites ‘…in which the wearable electronic device moves to a forehead of a user wearing the wearable electronic device…’. The rejections can be overcome by amending the claims to include ‘configured to’ language, defining the configuration so as not to positively recite a human organism.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170235333 A1 to von Badinski et al. (hereinafter, von Badinski) in view of US 9891110 B1 to Pei et al. (hereinafter, Pei).
Regarding Claim 1, von Badinski discloses a wearable electronic device (von Badinski: Abstract) comprising:
a housing including a first surface, and a second surface positioned to be opposite to the first surface and configured to come into contact with a part of a body when the wearable electronic device is worn (von Badinski: Para. [0004-0005] ‘ring’, ‘exterior wall’, ‘interior wall’, [0029] configured to come into contact with a part of a body when worn; Figs, 1B);
a temperature sensor disposed in an internal space of the housing and configured to measure a temperature of an object adjacent to the first surface (von Badinski: Para. [0167-0168], [0044-0046]; Note: both first and second temperature sensors in combination are being mapped to ‘the temperature sensor’, Fig. 3B);
an inertial sensor disposed in the internal space(von Badinski: Para. [0167], [0169-0170]);
memory storing one or more computer programs (von Badinski: Para. [0165-0166], [0170], [0174]); and
one or more processors communicatively connected to the temperature sensor, the inertial sensor, and the memory (von Badinski: Fig. 2),
wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (von Badinski: Para. [0166]), cause the wearable electronic device to:
detect a motion of the wearable electronic device by using the inertial sensor (von Badinski: Para. [0167], [0169-0170], [0185]), and
von Badinski is silent on a condition corresponding to detected motion for activating the temperature sensor, identifying the object on a basis of the detected motion, and measuring a temperature of the identified object by using the activated temperature sensor.
However, Pei teaches when a first condition corresponding to the detected motion is satisfied, activate the temperature sensor (Pei: Col. 4, line 48-Col. 5, line 5 ‘The control hardware 304 and the software 306 can direct the activation of the temperature sensor 202 based upon the distance measurement taken by the distance sensor 204.’; Col. 6, lines 7-12; Fig. 4; Note: The sensor tracks the proximity between the object and device, and upon reaching the proximity threshold via moving the device closer, activates the temperature sensor.);
identify the object on a basis of the detected motion (Pei: Col. 4, line 48-Col. 5, line 5 ‘the distance sensor 204 takes a distance measurement relative to an object to be measured by the temperature sensor 202, the output from the distance sensor 204 is transferred to the control hardware 304, then to software 306 of the end device.’; Fig. 4);
measure a temperature of the identified object by using the activated temperature sensor (Pei: Col. 4, line 48-Col. 5, line 5 ‘Either the control hardware 304 or the software 306 can control when a temperature measurement is to be made by the temperature sensor 202.’; Fig. 4).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the sensing modalities of von Badinski to include conditional temperature sensing of objects as taught by Pei to incorporate an expanded modality in non-contact, accurate measurement of temperature sensing of objects (Pei: Col. 4, line 48-Col. 5, line 5).
Regarding Claim 2, von Badinski in view of Pei discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 1, von Badinski further discloses wherein the housing is implemented in a ring shape and worn in a state in which the second surface is at least partially in contact with a part of the body (von Badinski: Para. [0155]; Fig. 1A).
Regarding Claim 3, von Badinski in view of Pei discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 2, von Badinski further discloses wherein a part of the body includes a finger, and wherein the temperature sensor is disposed to be directed to a palm in a closed fist and directed toward the outside in an open fist (von Badinski: Para. [0155], [0044-0046]; Note: both first and second temperature sensors in combination are being mapped to ‘the temperature sensor’.).
Regarding Claim 4, von Badinski in view of Pei discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 1, von Badinski further discloses wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (von Badinski: Fig. 2), cause the wearable electronic device to:
identify a first value corresponding to the detected motion by using the inertial sensor
(von Badinski: Para. [0168-0170]), and
Von Badinski is silent on activating the temperature sensor when the identified first value is included in a preset threshold range.
However, Pei teaches when the identified first value is included in a preset threshold range, at least partially activate the temperature sensor (Pei: Col. 5, lines 2-5 ‘the control hardware 304 and/or software 306 may not direct the temperature sensor 202 to take a temperature measurement until the distance measured by the distance sensor 204 is within a designated threshold.’).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the sensing modalities of von Badinski to include conditional temperature sensing of objects as taught by Pei to incorporate an expanded modality in non-contact, accurate measurement of temperature sensing of objects (Pei: Col. 4, line 48-Col. 5, line 5).
Regarding Claim 6, von Badinski in view of Pei discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 4, von Badinski further discloses wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the wearable electronic device to: (von Badinski: Fig. 2)
While von Badinski discloses detection of gestures using the inertial sensor to perform functions such as temperature sensing designated by the user (von Badinski: Para. [0167-170]). Von Badinski is silent on identifying in which the wearable electronic device moves to the object and at least partially activating the temperature sensor in response to the identification.
However, Pei teaches identifying in which the wearable electronic device moves to the object (Pei: Col. 4, line 48-Col. 5, line 5 ‘The control hardware 304 and the software 306 can direct the activation of the temperature sensor 202 based upon the distance measurement taken by the distance sensor 204.’; Fig. 4), and
at least partially activate the temperature sensor in response to the identification (Pei: Col. 4, line 48-Col. 5, line 5 ‘Either the control hardware 304 or the software 306 can control when a temperature measurement is to be made by the temperature sensor 202.’; Fig. 4).
Note: von Badinski teaches multi-gesture input and detection modalities to perform functions via an inertial sensor and temperature sensing as a function and is modified by Pei’s teaching of detecting the proximity of the device to an object, and activation of the temperature sensor in response to the proximity detection of the object. Therefore in combination, von Badinski in view of Pei teaches identifying using the inertial sensor, a second gesture in which the wearable electronic moves to the object, and at least partially activates the temperature sensor in response to the identification of the gesture.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the sensing modalities of von Badinski to include conditional temperature sensing of objects as taught by Pei to incorporate an expanded modality in non-contact, accurate measurement of temperature sensing of objects (Pei: Col. 4, line 48-Col. 5, line 5).
Regarding Claim 7, von Badinski in view of Pei discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 1, von Badinski further discloses wherein the temperature sensor comprises an infrared sensor configured to acquire infrared energy generated from the object (von Badinski: Para. [0168]).
Regarding Claim 20, von Badinski discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing one or more computer programs including computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a wearable electronic device, cause the wearable electronic device to perform operations (von Badisnki: Para. [0165-0166]; Fig. 2), the operations comprising:
detecting a motion of the wearable electronic device by using an inertial sensor disposed in an internal space of a housing (von Badinski: Para. [0168-0170]);
a temperature sensor disposed in the internal space of the housing (von Badinski: Para. [0167-0168], [0044-0046]; Note: both first and second temperature sensors in combination are being mapped to ‘the temperature sensor’, Fig. 3B)
von Badinski is silent on activating the temperature sensor in response to a situation in which a first condition corresponding to the detected motion is satisfied, identifying an object on a basis of the detected motion, and measuring a temperature of the identified object by using the activated temperature sensor.
Pei teaches activating in response to a situation in which a first condition corresponding to the detected motion is satisfied (Pei: Col. 4, line 48-Col. 5, line 5 ‘The control hardware 304 and the software 306 can direct the activation of the temperature sensor 202 based upon the distance measurement taken by the distance sensor 204.’; Col. 6, lines 7-12; Fig. 4; Note: The sensor tracks the proximity between the object and device, and upon reaching the proximity threshold via moving the device closer, activates the temperature sensor.);
identify the object on a basis of the detected motion (Pei: Col. 4, line 48-Col. 5, line 5 ‘the distance sensor 204 takes a distance measurement relative to an object to be measured by the temperature sensor 202, the output from the distance sensor 204 is transferred to the control hardware 304, then to software 306 of the end device.’; Fig. 4);
measure a temperature of the identified object by using the activated temperature sensor (Pei: Col. 4, line 48-Col. 5, line 5 ‘Either the control hardware 304 or the software 306 can control when a temperature measurement is to be made by the temperature sensor 202.’; Fig. 4).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the sensing modalities of von Badinski to include conditional temperature sensing of objects as taught by Pei to incorporate an expanded modality in non-contact, accurate measurement of temperature sensing of objects (Pei: Col. 4, line 48-Col. 5, line 5).
Claim(s) 5 & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over von Badinski in view of Pei in view of EP 4052640 A1 to Pizon et al. (hereinafter, Pizon).
Regarding Claim 5, von Badinski in view of Pei discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 4, von Badinski further discloses wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (von Badinski: Fig. 2), cause the wearable electronic device to:
identify, by using the inertial sensor, a first gesture (von Badinski: Para. [0168-0170]), and
Von Badinski is silent on activation of the temperature sensor in response to the identification and moving the wearable electronic device to a forehead of a user wearing the wearable electronic device.
Pei teaches at least partially activate the temperature sensor in response to the identification (Pei: Col. 4, line 48-Col. 5, line 5 ‘Either the control hardware 304 or the software 306 can control when a temperature measurement is to be made by the temperature sensor 202.’; Col. 5. Lines 54-63; Fig. 4).
Note: von Badinski teaches multi-gesture input and detection modalities to perform functions via an inertial sensor and temperature sensing as a function and is modified by Pei’s teaching of detecting the proximity of the device to an object, and activation of the temperature sensor in response to the proximity detection of the object. Therefore in combination, von Badinski in view of Pei teaches identifying using the inertial sensor, a second gesture in which the wearable electronic moves to the object, and at least partially activates the temperature sensor in response to the identification of the gesture.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the sensing modalities of von Badinski to include conditional temperature sensing of objects as taught by Pei to incorporate an expanded modality in non-contact, accurate measurement of temperature sensing of objects (Pei: Col. 4, line 48-Col. 5, line 5).
Von Badinski in view of Pei are silent on moving the wearable electronic device to a forehead of a user wearing the wearable electronic device.
However, Pizon teaches in which the wearable electronic device moves to a forehead of a user wearing the wearable electronic device and activating the temperature sensor in response (Pizon: Para. [0004]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the device of von Badinski by specifying forehead temperature measurement via motion gesture detection as taught by Pizon because the forehead temperature is representative for temperature of the entire body (Pizon: Para. [0004]).
Regarding Claim 9, von Badinski in view of Pei discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 1, von Badinski further discloses wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (von Badinski: Fig. 2), cause the wearable electronic device to:
detect a motion of the wearable electronic device by using the inertial sensor (von Badinski: Para. [0168-0170])
von Badinski is silent on detecting motion of the wearable electronic device after a temperature of the object is measured and deactivating the temperature sensor in an activated state when a second condition corresponding to the detected motion is satisfied.
Pizon teaches detecting motion of the wearable electronic device after a temperature of the object is measured and deactivate the temperature sensor in an activated state when a second condition corresponding to the detected motion is satisfied (Pizon: Para. [0006] ‘It is also possible to continuously record the trajectory of the device 1 and to read the temperature only if this trajectory corresponds with a high probability to the lifting of the device 1 near the head 16 of the patient 6. The signaling means 12 and 13 are used to signal the start and end of the temperature measurement’).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the device of von Badinski by specifying forehead temperature measurement via motion gesture detection as taught by Pizon because the forehead temperature is representative for temperature of the entire body (Pizon: Para. [0004]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over von Badinski in view of Pei in view of US 9109946 B2 to Lin et al. (hereinafter, Lin).
Regarding Claim 8, von Badinski in view of Pei discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 1, von Badinski further discloses wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the wearable electronic device to (von Badinski: Fig. 2):
Von Badinski is silent on first and second algorithms respectively measuring first and second temperatures of the object dependent on whether the object is a person or an item.
Pei teaches measuring temperature of an object in a situation in which the identified object is a person or an item (Pei: Col. 4, line 48-Col. 5, line 5 ‘the distance sensor 204 takes a distance measurement relative to an object to be measured by the temperature sensor 202, the output from the distance sensor 204 is transferred to the control hardware 304, then to software 306 of the end device… Either the control hardware 304 or the software 306 can control when a temperature measurement is to be made by the temperature sensor 202.’; Col. 5, lines 54-63; Fig. 4).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the sensing modalities of von Badinski to include conditional temperature sensing of objects as taught by Pei to incorporate an expanded modality in non-contact, accurate measurement of temperature sensing of objects (Pei: Col. 4, line 48-Col. 5, line 5).
Von Badinski in view of Pei is silent on first and second algorithms respectively measuring first and second temperatures of the object.
However, Lin teaches two modes of operation for temperature measurements dependent on object identification using two distinct algorithms (Lin: Col. 2, lines 45-49, Col 5, lines 21-36).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed would have found it obvious to modify the temperature sensing with object detection of von Badinski to include algorithms for differing objects detected as taught by Lin to identify the nature of the object and applying a different stored algorithm for the temperature calculation to provide reliable and accurate temperature measurements on various locations (Lin: Col. 1, lines 47-50).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over von Badinski in view of Pei in view of US 20180283913 A1 to Chen et al. (hereinafter, Chen).
Regarding Claim 10, von Badinski discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 1, von Badinski further discloses further comprising: a communication circuit, wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (von Badinski: Fig. 2), cause the wearable electronic device to:
Von Badinski is silent on receiving a control signal from external electronic devices operatively connected through the communicated circuit, and measuring a temperature of the object in response to the control signal.
However, Chen teaches receiving a control signal from external electronic devices operatively connected through the communication circuit (Chen: Para. [0048], [0056] ‘Information from the external devices 140 may include control information, command information, initial information, configuration information, termination information, or the like, or any combination thereof.’), and
measure a temperature of the object in response to the control signal (Chen: Para. [0047] ‘the system 110 may send control signals to an external sensor 130 or an on-board sensor. Exemplary external sensors 130 may include a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, a velocity sensor, an accelerometer (acceleration sensor), a proximity sensor, a thermal sensor, a gas sensor, a pressure sensor, a motion sensor, a biological information sensor, an electromagnetic sensor, a strain sensor, a resistance sensor, an electromechanical sensor, a magneto-resistive sensor, a Hall Effect sensor, a current measurement sensor, or the like, or any combination thereof. An on-board sensors may include any one of those illustrated above.’, [0048]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the device of von Badinski to include operational control by external devices as taught by Chen to incorporate interoperability between connected devices (Chen: Para. [0048]).
Regarding Claim 11, von Badinski in view of Pei in view of Chen discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 10, von Badinski further discloses wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (von Badinski: Fig. 2), cause the wearable electronic device to:
transmit the measured temperature to the external electronic devices through the communication circuit (von Badinski: Para. [0184]; Fig. 10 ‘skin temperature’, [0353] ‘The functions and structure of the device lend themselves to both a ring version and a wrist-worn version. All versions are designed for long-life with minimal maintenance, and are adaptable to interoperate with a variety of networked devices including computers, smartphones, home controllers, security systems, and virtually any other device capable of communicating over a wireless link—including another WCD or TCD’), and
display a user interface related to the measured temperature through displays of the external electronic devices (von Badinski: Para. [0184]; Fig. 10 ‘skin temperature’).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over von Badinski in view of Pei in view of US 10681818 B1 to Graber et al. (hereinafter, Graber).
Regarding Claim 12, von Badinski discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 1, von Badinski further discloses comprising:
wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (von Badinski: Fig. 2), cause the wearable electronic device to:
measure a temperature of the object by activating the temperature sensor (von Badinski: Para. [0168-0170]).
Von Badinski is silent on an audio circuit, acquiring an audio signal through the audio circuit and the temperature measurement of the object activated on a basis of the audio signal.
Pei teaches temperature measurements of the object activated on a basis of a signal (Pei: Col. 4, line 48-Col. 5, line 5 ‘when the distance sensor 204 takes a distance measurement relative to an object to be measured by the temperature sensor 202, the output from the distance sensor 204 is transferred to the control hardware 304, then to software 306 of the end device. Either the control hardware 304 or the software 306 can control when a temperature measurement is to be made by the temperature sensor 202. For example, in an implementation the control hardware 304 directs the temperature sensor 202 to take a temperature measurement of the object to be measured. In another implementation, the resident software 306 directs the temperature sensor 202 to take a temperature measurement of the object to be measured.’).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the sensing modalities of von Badinski to include conditional temperature sensing of objects as taught by Pei to incorporate an expanded modality in non-contact, accurate measurement of temperature sensing of objects (Pei: Col. 4, line 48-Col. 5, line 5).
Von Badinski in view of Pei is silent on audio signal activation.
However, Graber teaches a smart ring device that includes an audio circuit (Graber: Col. 9, lines 27-36, Col. 12, line 64-Col. 13, line 4), and
acquiring an audio signal through the audio circuit (Graber: Col. 6, lines 14-21, Col. 15, lines 40-47 )
to control operations of the device (Graber: Col. 2, lines 47-58; Col. 4, lines 18-25 ‘initiate actions in response to voice commands’).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the device of von Badinski to include an audio circuit for audio signal generation for operational functions of its device as taught by Graber to enable voice integration as an alternative command function of the device (Graber: Col. 2, lines 15-34).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN CURTIS BROUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-4pm 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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at 571-272-4233. 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.
/SHAWN CURTIS BROUGHTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/PATRICK FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights