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 .
Examiner’s Note
It appears that claims 18-20 are meant to depend from one of the previous claims but were written as independent claims. Examiner suggests amending the claims to be more in line with the main invention claimed in claims 1-17.
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 recites the limitation "the trainer/therapist" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 19 and 20 recite the limitation “The magnetic angle adjusting mounting system” in line 1 of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Asher (US 20230244307).
Regarding claim 1, A lateral awareness system configured to be worn by a user, the lateral awareness system comprising: a transducer configured to only monitor whether objects are in a lateral side of a user measured from the user’s line of sight; (“FIG. 3 illustrates a top-view 300 and side-view 305 of a viewer 302 wearing a headset 310 that can provide the viewer with a visual aid in real-time. As illustrated in FIG. 3, the headset 310 includes a single video camera 320 that captures images of a scene, frame by frame, from the view of the viewer 300.” Asher: paragraph 108; “The extent of visual field loss varies between individuals. If this affects one half of the visual field, it is referred to as hemianopia. If this is the same side for each eye, it is referred to as homonymous hemianopia.” Asher: paragraph 4; & Asher: figure 2)
a power source to power the transducer; (“The headset 102 may comprise additional features such as a head support, lenses, a power supply and the like as will be apparent to a person skilled in the art” Asher: paragraph 83)
a processor to receive and process signals from the transducer to determine when alerts should be generated; (“The video cameras 140 may then transmit the image data associated with a captured image to the processors 110 in order for the processors to manipulate the image data and/or transmit the image data to the display screen so that all or part of the captured image may be displayed on one display screen or both display screens” Asher: paragraph 86)
and an alerting system configured to generate the alerts. (“Hazard detection and warning (for example to warn of rapidly moving objects such as vehicles) can also be built into the software.” Asher: paragraph 120)
Regarding claim 2, The lateral awareness system of claim 1, further comprising a fastening system configured to attach the transducer to an eyeglass frame to support mobility of an individual with a visual field loss to at least one side. (Asher: figure 3)
Regarding claim 11, The lateral awareness system of claim 2, wherein the fastening system comprises an eyeglass mounting apparatus that can allow the lateral awareness system to be angled to control a direction of a field of view of the lateral awareness system. (Asher: figure 3; the mounting “allows” the user to tilt/turn their head in any desired direction to control the field of view of the system)
Regarding claim 13, The lateral awareness system of claim 1, further comprising a circuit board that allows the transducer to be mounted at a chosen angle relative to a vertical plane representing a line of sight. (Asher: figure 3)
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Borden (US 20130063929).
Regarding claim 18, A magnetic angle adjusting mounting system that can be clipped onto glasses frame temples for quick attachment/detachment. (“FIG. 8A schematically depicts one variation of a tilt mechanism and clip for attaching a vision aid to an eyeglass frame” Borden: paragraph 18 & figure 8A; the phrase “magnetic angle adjusting” is not given any patentable weight as it does not breathe any life into the claim limitations themselves, see MPEP 2111.02)
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kerns (US 6923652).
Regarding claim 19, The magnetic angle adjusting mounting system including O-rings configured for adaptability to varying frame temple profiles. (“The preferred attachment device 14 are the user's eyeglasses 100. The laser module 12 is reversibly secured to an arm 102 of the user's eyeglasses 100 via O-rings” Kerns: column 4, lines 3-6; the phrase “magnetic angle adjusting” is not given any patentable weight as it does not breathe any life into the claim limitations themselves, see MPEP 2111.02)
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gross (US 20080151175).
Regarding claim 20, The magnetic angle adjusting mounting system wherein the design of the housing provides a sensor position that is not parallel to a line of sight of the user so that a sensing field is directed from a central line of sight laterally and vertically into a non-seeing lateral field of view. (“For some applications, power unit 28 comprises an eye motion sensor” Gross: paragraph 240 and figure 1A, 9, 10A, 10B, 10C; the power unit is oriented at an angle to the central line of sight of the user; the phrase “magnetic angle adjusting” is not given any patentable weight as it does not breathe any life into the claim limitations themselves, see MPEP 2111.02)
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.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asher in view of Rizzo (US 20150002808).
Regarding claim 3, The lateral awareness system of claim 1, wherein the transducer is configured to provide a range of outputs which vary depending on a distance of an object from the transducer is not specifically disclosed by Asher. Rizzo discloses an eyeglass mounted alerting system that teaches varying the level of indication based on the change in distance of the object to the user (“For example, tactile sensations such as pressure and/or vibrations can be applied to the skin of the user (e.g., either directly or through the side bars of eyeglass frames 102) to alert the user of oncoming objects that are potentially hazardous (e.g., an applied pressure can increase or an amplitude of vibrations can increase as the object approaches).” Rizzo: paragraph 107). Modifying Asher to include changing indications based on the distance to the object would increase the overall utility of the system by providing the user with additional information regarding the severity of a potential collision. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Asher according to Rizzo.
Regarding claim 4, The lateral awareness system of claim 3, wherein in response to the processor determining an output of the transducer is greater than a threshold indicating an object is present in a first zone, the alerting system outputs a first output. (“For example, tactile sensations such as pressure and/or vibrations can be applied to the skin of the user (e.g., either directly or through the side bars of eyeglass frames 102) to alert the user of oncoming objects that are potentially hazardous (e.g., an applied pressure can increase or an amplitude of vibrations can increase as the object approaches).” Rizzo: paragraph 107 & “As a further example, a triggering event can be defined such that a re-prioritization occurs if when a person approaches the user at a distance of less than a threshold distance” Rizzo: paragraph 194 & “As another example, if the triggered event corresponds to a distance between the user and a navigation target, or location where the user should change direction, of less than a threshold distance, then the re-prioritization rules can elevate the reporting of the approaching landmark or navigation target to a higher (or highest) priority” Rizzo: paragraph 196).
Regarding claim 5, The lateral awareness system of claim 4, wherein in response to the processor determining an output of the transducer is less than the threshold indicating an object is present in a second zone different from the first zone, the alerting system outputs a second output different from the first output. (“For example, tactile sensations such as pressure and/or vibrations can be applied to the skin of the user (e.g., either directly or through the side bars of eyeglass frames 102) to alert the user of oncoming objects that are potentially hazardous (e.g., an applied pressure can increase or an amplitude of vibrations can increase as the object approaches).” Rizzo: paragraph 107 & “As a further example, a triggering event can be defined such that a re-prioritization occurs if when a person approaches the user at a distance of less than a threshold distance” Rizzo: paragraph 194 & “As another example, if the triggered event corresponds to a distance between the user and a navigation target, or location where the user should change direction, of less than a threshold distance, then the re-prioritization rules can elevate the reporting of the approaching landmark or navigation target to a higher (or highest) priority” Rizzo: paragraph 196).
Regarding claim 6, The lateral awareness system of claim 1, wherein the transducer is attached to one or both sides of an eyeglass frame is not specifically disclosed by Asher. Rizzo discloses an eyeglass mounted alerting system that teaches mounting the detectors on the sides of an eyeglasses frame (“FIG. 1 shows a schematic diagram of an embodiment of a visual assistive device 100. Assistive device 100--implemented, e.g., in part as eyeglass frames 102--includes a detection apparatus featuring detectors 110 and 112,” Rizzo: paragraph 83 & figure 1). Modifying Asher to mount the detector on the side of the eyeglass frame would increase the flexibility of the system by providing the user with additional options for construction. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Asher according to Rizzo.
Regarding claim 7, The lateral awareness system of claim 1, wherein the alert system comprises a haptic that is configured to output a vibration alert that notifies the wearer of a potential obstacle within their non-seeing visual field is not specifically disclosed by Asher. Rizzo discloses an eyeglass mounted alerting system that teaches varying the level of indication based on the change in distance of the object to the user (“For example, tactile sensations such as pressure and/or vibrations can be applied to the skin of the user (e.g., either directly or through the side bars of eyeglass frames 102) to alert the user of oncoming objects that are potentially hazardous (e.g., an applied pressure can increase or an amplitude of vibrations can increase as the object approaches).” Rizzo: paragraph 107). Modifying Asher to include haptic indications would increase the overall utility of the system by providing the user with additional notification means. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Asher according to Rizzo.
Regarding claim 8, The lateral awareness system of claim 1, wherein transducer comprises a haptic alert that provides various vibration signals depending upon a proximity of an obstacle to the transducer is not specifically disclosed by Asher. Rizzo discloses an eyeglass mounted alerting system that teaches varying the level of tactile indication based on the change in distance of the object to the user (“For example, tactile sensations such as pressure and/or vibrations can be applied to the skin of the user (e.g., either directly or through the side bars of eyeglass frames 102) to alert the user of oncoming objects that are potentially hazardous (e.g., an applied pressure can increase or an amplitude of vibrations can increase as the object approaches).” Rizzo: paragraph 107). Modifying Asher to include changing haptic indications based on the distance to the object would increase the overall utility of the system by providing the user with additional information regarding the severity of a potential collision. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Asher according to Rizzo.
Regarding claim 10, The lateral awareness system of claim 1, wherein the transducer is directed to respond to obstacles at varying distances in the x, y and z axes of the line of sight of the user. (“For example, tactile sensations such as pressure and/or vibrations can be applied to the skin of the user (e.g., either directly or through the side bars of eyeglass frames 102) to alert the user of oncoming objects that are potentially hazardous (e.g., an applied pressure can increase or an amplitude of vibrations can increase as the object approaches).” Rizzo: paragraph 107; the distance is measured from the user in all directions)
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected as claims 1, 4, and 5 stated above.
Regarding claim 15, The method of claim 14, wherein the user is provided with both a visual (“The transmitted information can include at least one of audio signals, electromagnetic signals, and tactile signals. The additional electromagnetic or acoustic signals can include one or more images, and the audio signals can include warnings based upon identification of hazardous objects in the one or more images and/or identities of persons in the one or more images and/or audio transcriptions of printed text in the one or more images” Rizzo: paragraph 56)
and haptic signal that increases in frequency as objects get closer to the transducer, thereby warning the user with an increased imperative for evasive action. (“For example, tactile sensations such as pressure and/or vibrations can be applied to the skin of the user (e.g., either directly or through the side bars of eyeglass frames 102) to alert the user of oncoming objects that are potentially hazardous (e.g., an applied pressure can increase or an amplitude of vibrations can increase as the object approaches).” Rizzo: paragraph 107)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asher in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 9, The lateral awareness system of claim 1, wherein transducer that contains an optional notification light that notifies the trainer/therapist that the device has been activated to aid in the training of the user to effectively use the lateral awareness system is not specifically disclosed by Asher. Examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide an indicator light that is activated when an electronic device is powered on. Modifying Asher to include an indicator light to indicate that the device is powered on and in use would increase the utility of the device by allowing the user to know when it is on or not. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Asher according to Official Notice.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asher in view of Kim (US 20150004869).
Regarding claim 12, The lateral awareness system of claim 2, wherein the fastening system comprises a central magnet combined with an array of male and female teeth for angular positioning of the device is not specifically disclosed by Asher. Kim discloses a mounting system that teaches rotation between two pieces using saw-tooth wheels along with a magnet (“The fine rotation angle-adjusting unit (60) may include fine adjustment saw-tooth wheels (62) each provided between the stopping jaws (71, 72, 73 and 74) disposed on the accommodation unit (50) and arranged coaxially with the saw-tooth wheels (42) of the magnet mounting unit (40), and saw-toothed protrusions 64 disposed on the magnet mounting unit (40) so as to be movable in engagement with the fine-adjustment saw-toothed wheels (62) along a circumferential direction of the fine-adjustment saw-toothed wheels (62).” Kim: paragraph 19). Modifying Asher to include saw-toothed wheels with a magnet for fine rotation control would increase the overall utility of the system by providing the user with means for fine adjusting of the sensor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Asher according to Kim.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asher in view of Rizzo and further in view of Sanchez (US 12074897).
Regarding claim 16, The method of claim 14, wherein the system does not continue to provide alerts for the same detected object within a set time frame is not specifically disclosed by Asher and Rizzo. Sanchez discloses an alerting device that teaches eliminating nuisance alarms based on repeated detection of the same instance (“As previously noted, security analysts currently have to spend an inordinate amount of time examining huge volumes of alerts and disparate uncorroborated detection messages (even if two or more detection messages are the same or similar to each other) to determine whether a given detection message looks suspicious. Unfortunately, existing implementations do not corroborate same or similar detection messages to a single alert, resulting in a voluminous number of alerts that can quickly become unmanageable for a security analyst. Therefore, in some embodiments, ATC server 225 uses merging keys 250 in each detection message to group detection messages associated with the same or similar process, action, operation, or cause indicated by a detection source system (that gave rise to the detection message) into a single group or single alert—thus, significantly optimizing alert management and resource utilization.” Sanchez: column 9, lines 1-16 & “As shown in FIG. 6, detection parameters 620 are used outside the machine learning process and can include a type of alert, the number of detections, and the time of detections.” Sanchez: column 13, lines 62-64). Modifying Asher and Rizzo to limit alerts to a single alert for the same detected instance over a time period would increase the overall utility of the system by providing the user with means to avoid nuisance alerts. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Asher and Rizzo according to Sanchez.
Regarding claim 17, The method of claim 14, wherein the system does not continue to provide warning for the same detected object within a set distance range is not specifically disclosed by Asher and Rizzo. Sanchez discloses an alerting device that teaches eliminating nuisance alarms based on repeated detection of the same instance (“As previously noted, security analysts currently have to spend an inordinate amount of time examining huge volumes of alerts and disparate uncorroborated detection messages (even if two or more detection messages are the same or similar to each other) to determine whether a given detection message looks suspicious. Unfortunately, existing implementations do not corroborate same or similar detection messages to a single alert, resulting in a voluminous number of alerts that can quickly become unmanageable for a security analyst. Therefore, in some embodiments, ATC server 225 uses merging keys 250 in each detection message to group detection messages associated with the same or similar process, action, operation, or cause indicated by a detection source system (that gave rise to the detection message) into a single group or single alert—thus, significantly optimizing alert management and resource utilization.” Sanchez: column 9, lines 1-16 & “As shown in FIG. 6, detection parameters 620 are used outside the machine learning process and can include a type of alert, the number of detections, and the time of detections.” Sanchez: column 13, lines 62-64). Modifying Asher and Rizzo to limit alerts to a single alert for the same detected instance would increase the overall utility of the system by providing the user with means to avoid nuisance alerts. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Asher and Rizzo according to Sanchez.
Conclusion
Related Art:
US 10795183 B1 – eyeglass mounted sensor system
US 20180249151 A1 – eyeglass mounted sensor system
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS R HUNNINGS whose telephone number is (571)272-3118. The examiner can normally be reached M: 6-7:30a, 9:30a-4:45p, 8:30-10p; T: 6-7:30a, 12-4p, 7:30p-12a; W: 6-7:30a, 9:30a-4:45p; H: 6-7:30a, 8:15a-4:45p; F: 12:00-4:45p.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/TRAVIS R HUNNINGS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689