DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Applicant has canceled claim 1 and added claims 2-21 in a preliminary amendment. Currently, claims 2-21 are pending. Examiner refers to the action below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The following reasons are provided to evaluate subject matter eligibility.
(1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter;
(2A) Prong One: Are the claims directed to a judicially recognized exception, i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea;
Prong Two: If the claims are directed to a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application;
(2B) If the claims are directed to a judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept.
With regard to (1), the analysis is a ‘yes’, claim 2 recites a manufacture, claim 12 recites a process, and claim 20 recites a machine.
With regard to (2A) Prong One, the analysis is a “yes”. Claim 1 recites “identify, using a trained machine-learning model, data associated with a plurality of interesting moments in the visual data captured by the camera of the smart glasses, wherein the data associated with the plurality of interesting moments includes an image of a first interesting moment of the plurality of interesting moments, and further includes a video of a second interesting moment of the plurality of interesting moments; and provide, to a client device in communication with the smart glasses, the data associated with the plurality of interesting moments.” When viewed under the broadest most reasonable interpretation the claim recites an abstract idea of mental processes. The step of “identify” is generically recited because there is no description of how this is accomplished. It can be interpreted as merely looking at the data, and evaluating the data in the mind. The concepts, as claimed, are observations and/or evaluations (“identify...”) and judgements (“first and second interesting moments...”). There is nothing in the claim that requires more than an operation that a human, armed with the appropriate apparatus, pen/paper, can perform. One can perform the process using pen and paper, and the recitation of modules (such as judgers, gathering unit, an inference model) in the system/device claim is a mere use of generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.04 and the 2019 PEG.
With regard to (2A) Prong Two: the analysis is a “No”. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of “provide, to a client device in communication with the smart glasses, the data associated with the plurality of interesting moments”; and these additional elements represents mere data gathering and indexing the data all together that is necessary for use of the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation(s) is/are insignificant extra-solution activity, therefore, a generic operation. See MPEP 2106.05(1). The claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
With regard to (2B): the pending claims do not show what is more than a routine in the art presented in the claims, i.e., the additional elements are nothing more than routine and well-known steps. The additional elements do not reflect an improvement to a technology or technical field, including the use of a particular machine or particular transformation. It has not been shown that the mental process allows the “technology” to do something that it previously was not able to do.
Claims 12 and 20 are similarly rejected for the same reasons as claim 2. Dependent claims 3-11, 13-19, and 21 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are rejected for the same reasons and not repeated herewith.
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 (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)(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.
Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (U.S. patent 2021/0117712 A1).
Regarding claim 2: A non-transitory, non-volatile computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors in communication with smart glasses (abstract and paragraph 0008), cause the one or more processors to:
during an auto-capture session at the smart glasses, receive visual data captured by a camera of the smart glasses (paragraphs 0067, 0092, 0093, 0097, 0098, and 0102-0104, especially paragraph 0092);
identify, using a trained machine-learning model, data associated with a plurality of interesting moments in the visual data captured by the camera of the smart glasses, wherein the data associated with the plurality of interesting moments includes an image of a first interesting moment of the plurality of interesting moments, and further includes a video of a second interesting moment of the plurality of interesting moments (paragraphs 0067, 0092, 0093, 0097, 0098, and 0102-0104); and
provide, to a client device in communication with the smart glasses, the data associated with the plurality of interesting moments (abstract and paragraph 0009, and 0029-0031).
Regarding claim 3: The non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of Claim 2, wherein each of the plurality of interesting moments is associated with a measure of interestingness greater than a threshold measure of interestingness (paragraph 0098, different calibrations are applied to get the most meaningful and high quality moments. The calibrations are read as thresholds. The higher the value above the threshold the more meaningful and high quality moment and vice versa with the value being below the threshold.).
Regarding claim 4: The non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of Claim 3, wherein the instructions when executed by the one or more processors further cause the one or more processors to determine, based on the trained machine-learning model and the visual data, that the measure of interestingness with each of the plurality of interesting moments is higher than the threshold measure of interestingness (paragraphs 0098-0100).
Regarding claim 5: The non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of Claim 4, wherein the trained machine-learning model is trained based on a plurality of images and videos corresponding to a plurality of moments of a plurality of activities, wherein each of the plurality of images and video is associated with a predetermined measure of interestingness (paragraphs 0098-0100).
Regarding claim 6: The non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of Claim 2, wherein the smart glasses comprise at least one of the one or more processors (paragraphs 0058, 0065, 0067, and 0092, i.e. AR/VR glasses).
Regarding claim 7: The non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of Claim 2, wherein the client device comprises at least one of the one or more processors (fig. 1 and paragraphs 0026-0031).
Regarding claim 8: The non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of Claim 2, wherein the visual data is stored as one or more media data files at the client device (abstract and paragraphs 0009-0012).
Regarding claim 9: The non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of Claim 2, wherein the instructions when executed by the one or more processors further cause the one or more processors to:
detect, based on at least the trained machine-learning model and the visual data, a start of an activity (paragraph 0124);
detect, based on at least the trained machine-learning model and the visual data, an end to the activity (paragraph 0124);
activate the auto-capture session during the activity (paragraphs 0067, 0092, 0093, 0097, 0098, and 0102-0104, especially paragraph 0092);
generate, based on visual data captured during the auto-capture session,
a highlights video based on a summarization of the visual data, wherein the summarization is based on a measure of interestingness of the visual data; and present the highlights video on a display of the client device (abstract and paragraphs 0009-0012).
Regarding claim 10: The non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of Claim 9, wherein the instructions when executed by the one or more processors further cause the one or more processors to, during an auto-capture session at the smart glasses, receive one or more sensor signals captured by a plurality of sensors of the smart glasses, wherein detecting the start of the activity is further based on the sensor signals, and detecting the end of the activity is further based on the sensor signals (paragraphs 0029 and s 0058).
Regarding claim 11: The non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of Claim 10, wherein the one or more sensor signals comprise one or more of an inertial measurement unit (IMU) signal, an audio signal (paragraph 0058, i.e. a microphone), a GPS signal (paragraph 0029), an electromyography (EMG) signal, and a visual signal (paragraphs 0029 and 0058, i.e. a camera=visual).
Regarding claim 12: See claim 2.
Regarding claim 13: See claim 3.
Regarding claim 14: See claim 4.
Regarding claim 15: See claim 5.
Regarding claim 16: See claim 8.
Regarding claim 17: See claim 9.
Regarding claim 18: See claim 10.
Regarding claim 19: See claim 11.
Regarding claim 20: See claim 2.
Regarding claim 21: See claim 9.
Contact Information
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANAND BHATNAGAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7416. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30am-4:00pm.
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, Vu Le can be reached on 571-272-4650. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANAND P BHATNAGAR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668
August 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights