DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed on 8/29/2024 and the preliminary amendment filed on the same day.
Claims 1-15 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 12, and 15 are independent claims.
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 .
Priority
The application is a 371 national stage entry of PCT/EP/2023/054855 filed on 2/27/2023. It also claims foreign priority to EP 22305282.0 filed on 03/11/2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/29/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the controller is a smartphone or the controller” which is found to create confusion about the controller that first gets introduced in independent claim 1. Examiner suggests amending this limitation in claim 9 to recite “wherein the controller is a smartphone or a controller integrated into the optical device”, as described by [0025] of the specifications of Applicant.
Examiner Comments
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.
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.
Claims 1-10, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferminger et al., US PGPUB 2020/0363658 Al (hereinafter as Ferminger) in view of Olarig et al., US PGPUB 2021/0256311 Al (hereinafter as Olarig).
Regarding independent claim 1, Ferminger teaches a system comprising an optical device [note the eyewear in [0013]] and a controller [see [0009]],
the optical device being intended to be worn by a user [note the eyewear in [0013]], and comprising a first sensor, a second sensor, and a module [note in [0013] the plurality of sensors and the modifiable pair of lenses],
the controller being configured: to determine a situation of the user using first and second data received from the first and second sensors respectively [note e.g. in [0029]-[0031] as well as [0038] indicating the determination that the user is driving; note also the determination of a change in driving conditions],
and the controller being also configured: to control the module according to the situation [note e.g. in [0038]-[0040] the controllable variable-tint lens being controlled depending on a detected mode based on certain driving criterion].
Ferminger does not explicitly teach determining a situation of the user using a model and first data received from the first sensor nor determining a confidence level associated with the situation. Neither does it explicitly teach activating the second sensor and updating the situation using second data received from the second sensor, when the confidence level is below a threshold.
Olarig teaches making a prediction using a model and first data, determining a confidence level associated with the prediction, and initiating a second stage prediction utilizing second data and updating the prediction using the second data, when the confidence level is below a threshold [note the two different stages of prediction that sequentially use first and second data, as needed, based on a determined confidence value (at the conclusion of the first stage prediction) indicating a probability that the initial prediction is correct) in [0051]-[0052] and [0055]].
Olarig’s known confidence-dependent two-stage prediction using a model and appropriate data is applicable to the prediction of the user situation taught by Ferminger in which first and second data originate from different sensors included in an optical device intended to be worn by the user.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying Olarig’s technique of staged predictions dependent on a confidence level at the end of the first prediction stage being below a threshold to Ferminger’s environment would have yielded the predictable results of ensuring an improved prediction that also favors wise usage of energy and computing time on processing elements since the second stage prediction utilizing the second data is only invoked if the initial prediction using the primary data provides insufficient accuracy, as also suggested by Olarig [see e.g. [0010], [0016], and [0025]], which would enable an improved approach for predicting a user situation using different sensor data available from worn devices.
The rationale for the combination would be that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known invention that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
See MPEP 2143 I.D.
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of independent claim 1 is fully incorporated. Olarig further teaches that the model is a learning model previously generated using a plurality of sets of training data, each set being associated with a predicted entity [note e.g. in [0035] the pre-training of the ML models; especially note also in [0035] learning models specially trained by a certain set (such as objects in foggy weather) for detection/prediction by the model; see also in [0050] the use of chroma data for model training; see also [0012]-[0013]]. It would have been obvious to apply Olarig’s technique of learning models that are pre-trained using a plurality of training data, each set being associated with a predicted entity to Ferminger’s environment in which the predictions concern a user situation. Refer to the rejection of claim 1 for a full analysis on combining the teachings of the cited art.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of independent claim 1 is fully incorporated. Ferminger further teaches that the first sensor is: a sensor to determine an acceleration [note in [0027] the option of a sensor for acceleration determination in the frame], a sensor to determine an amount of a portion of light received by the optical device [note in [0060] the option of an ambient light sensor], or a sensor to determine a distance between the user and an object that the user is reading.
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of independent claim 1 is fully incorporated. Ferminger further teaches that the second sensor is: a sensor to capture a picture [note the camera indicated in [0029]], or a sensor to detect a gaze axis of the user.
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of independent claim 1 is fully incorporated. Ferminger further teaches that the module is: a variable-tint lens [note e.g. in [0039]-[0040] the controllable variable-tint lens], a variable-power lens, a communication module configured to transmit information representing the situation, a light emitting device, or a tactile actuator.
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of independent claim 1 is fully incorporated. Ferminger further teaches that the controller is configured to determine: that the user is indoor, that the user is outdoor, that the user is driving [note e.g. in [0029]-[0031] as well as [0038] indicating the determination that the user is driving], that the user has fallen, that the user is reading, a type of an apparatus the user is reading on, or a distance between the user and an element the user is looking at.
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of independent claim 1 is fully incorporated. Olarig further teaches that the controller is also configured to update the model using the second data when the confidence level is below a threshold [note e.g. in [0050] the retraining of the model based on the chroma (second) data]. Refer to the rejection of claim 1 for combining the teachings of the cited art.
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of independent claim 1 is fully incorporated. Ferminger further teaches that the optical device is an eyewear [note e.g. the eyewear indicated in [0013] as well as [0047]].
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of independent claim 1 is fully incorporated. Ferminger further teaches that the controller is a smartphone [note e.g. the option of a smartphone to interact with the eyewear indicated in [0013]] or a controller integrated into the optical device.
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of independent claim 1 is fully incorporated. Ferminger further teaches that the module is controlled also using physiological parameters of the user or preferences of the user [note e.g. in [0013] the option of manual modification by a user (according to his/her preferences) of the lenses (as opposed to automatic modification)].
Regarding independent claim 12, it is rejected analogous to the rejection of independent claim 1. Ferminger also teaches an eyewear intended to be worn by a user [note the eyewear in [0013]], comprising: a controller [see [0009]], a first sensor, a second sensor; and a module [note in [0013] the plurality of sensors and the modifiable pair of lenses], the controller being configured: to perform the steps recited in independent claim 1. Refer to the rejection of claim 1 for full details.
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of independent claim 12 is fully incorporated. Ferminger further teaches that
the first sensor is: a sensor to determine an acceleration [note in [0027] the option of a sensor for acceleration determination in the frame], a sensor to determine an amount of a portion of light received by the optical device [note in [0060] the option of an ambient light sensor], or a sensor to determine a distance between the user and an object that the user is reading
and/or the second sensor is: a sensor to capture a picture [note the camera indicated in [0029]], or a sensor to detect a gaze axis of the user,
and/or the module is: a variable-tint lens [note e.g. in [0039]-[0040] the controllable variable-tint lens], a variable-power lens, a communication module configured to transmit information representing the situation, a light emitting device, or a tactile actuator.
Regarding independent claim 15, it is rejected analogous to the rejection of independent claim 1. Ferminger also teaches a method see e.g. [0040][] for controlling a module of an optical device intended to be worn by a user [note the eyewear in [0013]], the method comprising the steps recited in independent claim 1. Refer to the rejection of claim 1 for full details.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferminger in view of Olarig, as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, respectively, and further in view of Tournier et al., US PGPUB 2020/0342748 A1 (hereinafter as Tournier).
Regarding claims 11 and 13, the rejection of independent claims 1 and 12 are respectively incorporated. The previously combined art does not explicitly teach that the first sensor has a power consumption inferior to a power consumption of the second sensor.
Tournier teaches a first sensor that has a power consumption inferior to a power consumption of a second sensor (in a situation where the second sensor is activated when a confidence level of a prediction is below a threshold) [note e.g. in [0076] the Doppler RADAR and the video camera, with the first of these having a power consumption inferior to a power consumption of the other, and wherein the camera gets activated when the confidence is less than a certain threshold].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, having the combined teachings of the previously combined art and Tournier, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to explicitly specify that the first sensor has a power consumption inferior to a power consumption of the second sensor, as per the teachings of Tournier. The motivation for this obvious combination of these teachings would be to improve accuracy while saving power and data storage, as suggested by Tournier [see e.g. [0076]].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Examiner notes from the prior art:
US 2008/0037840 Al, which teaches activating enhanced subsystems such as high-power cameras in situations where an improvement is needed with respect to the performance of other systems [see e.g. [0091], [0098]-[0099]; see also the last limitation of claim 50].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA S AYAD whose telephone number is (571)272-2743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am - 4:30 pm. Alt, Friday, 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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/MARIA S AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
