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 .
DETAILED ACTION
2. The action is responsive to the communications filed on 8/4/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-20 are amended. Claim 1, 8, 15 are independent claims. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Summary of claims
3. Claims 1-20 are pending,
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-20 are amended,
Claims 1, 8, 15 are independent claims,
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Remarks
4. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on 8/4/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 8, 15 under double patenting, since Applicant filed TD as required, the double patenting rejection is withdrawn; with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive in view of new rejection ground(s).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peter Brook et al (US Publication 20180091304 A1, hereinafter Brook), in view of Yonatan Wexler et al (US Publication 20170358241 A1, hereinafter Wexler), and Jonathan Rodriguez (US Publication 20190146219 A1, hereinafter Rodriguez).
As for independent claim 1, Brook discloses: A method comprising: capturing, by an image sensor of a computing device comprising one or more processors and a storage device ([0044], the image data from the user device is received in response to a user-initiated image capture), one or more images corresponding to a wearable device worn by a user ([0035], wearable devices such as glasses, visors, watches, or other network enabled items), … storing, by the one or more processors of the computing device, the one or more images to the storage device ([0026], include memory to store images and video captured by the camera system); analyzing, by the one or more processors of the computing device, the one or more images to determine one or more aspects of the wearable device ([0039], extracts and analyzes candidate shape features or candidate contour characteristics from image data of the image received from the user device) …; completing, by the computing device, a pairing process with the wearable device based on the model of the wearable device (Abstract, device pairing using optical codes; [0022]-[0024], using QR codes and other optical barcodes to share small pieces of information to users of wearable device, and a camera may capture the optical code and then use the optical code as part of a set of wireless pairing communications, information associated with the optical code could include an entity logo; see Rodriguez with details regarding “model”).
Brook discloses pairing with a wearable device based on the captured image but does not clearly disclose images include a display of the wearable device, in an analogous art of pairing with external device based on captured image, Wexler discloses: the one or more images including, at least, a display of the wearable device (Wexler: [0139], a camera included in wearable apparatus 110 may capture one or more images from an environment. The environment may include anything within visual perception of a user of wearable apparatus 110. For example, wearable apparatus 110 may use at least one image sensor, e.g., image sensor 220, to capture the one or more images; [0170], include a plurality of images of the user's body part from various angles or in different positions. Examples of identifying features include the general appearance of the user's body part, as well as the presence of a birthmark in a particular location, a ring on a particular finger, a tattoo, a bracelet, a wristwatch, or other object typically associated with the user or characteristic identifying the user; please note the images include a wristwatch);
Brook and Wexler are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, managing data interaction between two devices based on the captured image. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Brook using the teachings of Wexler to include captured images include a watch in user body. The motivation is to identify user device characteristic data easily from the images.
Further, Brook discloses using QR codes and other optical barcodes to share small pieces of information to users of wearable device ([0020], [0023]), and a camera may capture the optical code and then use the optical code as part of a set of wireless pairing communications, information associated with the optical code could include an entity logo ([0024]), however, Brook does not clearly disclose determining a model of the wearable device from the image, in another analogous art of communicating between wearable devices, Rodriguez discloses: analyzing, by the one or more processors of the computing device, the one or more images to determine one or more aspects of the wearable device including a model of the wearable device; and completing, by the computing device, a pairing process with the wearable device based on the model of the wearable device (Rodriguez: [0047], obtain data from the smartwatch that would allow it to determine the make and model of the smartwatch);
Brook and Rodriguez are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, managing data interaction between two devices based on the captured image. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Brook using the teachings of Rodriguez to include obtaining data of the make and model of the smartwatch. The motivation is to calibrate wearable devices easily and accurately.
As for claim 2, Brook-Wexler-Rodriguez discloses: wherein the display of the wearable device displays a particular image on the display that conveys the model of the wearable device, and wherein one or more images, including the display of the wearable device, capture the particular image displayed by the wearable device on the display (Brook: [0020], Quick Response (QR) codes, and other optical barcodes, are a convenient way to share small pieces of information to users of mobile devices, wearable devices, and other smart devices).
As for claim 3, Brook-Wexler-Rodriguez discloses: wherein analyzing the one or more images comprises extracting the particular image displayed by the wearable device on the display from the one or more images captured by the image sensor of the computing device; and determining the model of the wearable device based on the particular image (Brook: [0020], Quick Response (QR) codes, and other optical barcodes, are a convenient way to share small pieces of information to users of mobile devices, wearable devices, and other smart devices).
As for claim 4, Brook-Wexler-Rodriguez discloses: wherein the one or more aspects of the wearable device further include at least one of a size of the wearable device, a tightness of a band of the wearable device on a body part of a user, a material of the wearable device, a material of the band of the wearable device, a color of the wearable device, a color of the band of the wearable device, a physical orientation of the wearable device with respect to a body part of the user of the wearable device, or an orientation of a physical input element of the wearable device with respect to a body of the user of the wearable device (Brook: [0049], Diagram 300 shows an example optical barcode that includes a custom graphic 310 (e.g., a company logo), and markings 320 that represent data encoded into the optical barcode. In this example, the custom graphic 310 is a company logo; Wexler: [0050], capture and analyze image data, identify at least one posture indicator present in the image data; [0127], identify at least one posture indicator from one or more images. The at least one posture indicator may be associated with the posture of a single hand of the user, of both hands of the user, of part of a single arm of the user, of parts of both arms of the user, of a single arm of the user, of both arms of the user, of the head of the user, of parts of the head of the user, of the entire body of the user, and so forth; [0165], identifying a context or orientation of the detected body part).
As for claim 5, Brook-Wexler-Rodriguez discloses: wherein completing the pairing process with the wearable device based on the model of the wearable device comprises: based on the one or more aspects of the wearable device, accessing instructions for completing the pairing process; and completing the pairing process based on the instructions (Brook: [0002], use of optical communications for pairing of a wearable device (e.g. smart glasses) with a host device (e.g. a smart phone)).
As for claim 6, Brook-Wexler-Rodriguez discloses: wherein the model of the wearable device are used to visually represent the wearable device on a second display of the computing device (Brook: [0049], Diagram 300 shows an example optical barcode that includes a custom graphic 310 (e.g., a company logo), and markings 320 that represent data encoded into the optical barcode. In this example, the custom graphic 310 is a company logo representing the wearable device; Rodriguez: [0047], obtain data from the smartwatch that would allow it to determine the make and model of the smartwatch).
As for claim 7, Brook-Wexler-Rodriguez discloses: wherein the pairing process is configured to establish a secure wireless communication channel between the wearable device and the computing device (Brook: [0021], establish a secure wireless connection, which is used for secure handshaking).
As per Claim 8, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by Claim 1, thus the rationales for rejecting Claim 1 are incorporated herein.
As per Claim 9, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by Claim 2, thus the rationales for rejecting Claim 2 are incorporated herein.
As per Claim 10, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by Claim 3, thus the rationales for rejecting Claim 3 are incorporated herein.
As per Claim 11, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by Claim 4, thus the rationales for rejecting Claim 4 are incorporated herein.
As per Claim 12, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by Claim 5, thus the rationales for rejecting Claim 5 are incorporated herein.
As per Claim 13, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by Claim 6, thus the rationales for rejecting Claim 6 are incorporated herein.
As per Claim 14, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by Claim 7, thus the rationales for rejecting Claim 7 are incorporated herein.
As per Claim 15, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by Claim 1, thus the rationales for rejecting Claim 1 are incorporated herein.
As per Claim 16, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by Claim 2, thus the rationales for rejecting Claim 2 are incorporated herein.
As per Claim 17, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by Claim 3, thus the rationales for rejecting Claim 3 are incorporated herein.
As per Claim 18, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by Claim 4, thus the rationales for rejecting Claim 4 are incorporated herein.
As per Claim 19, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by Claim 5, thus the rationales for rejecting Claim 5 are incorporated herein.
As per Claim 20, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by Claim 6, thus the rationales for rejecting Claim 6 are incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hua Lu whose telephone number is 571-270-1410 and fax number is 571-270-2410. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 am to 6:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman can be reached on 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-273-8300.
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.
/Hua Lu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
