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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7/7/2026 and 6/6/2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2 and 9-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 1, 13, 6-11, 1, 1, 6 and 1 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11,405,552. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of the claims of the present invention are taught by the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,405,552.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16, 1, 1, 11 and 1 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,363,427. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of the claims of the present invention are taught by the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,363,427.
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)(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.
1: Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, 11-14 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20190268668 A1 Moskovchenko et al.
2: As for Claim 1, Moskovchenko et al teaches in Paragraph [0081] and depicts in Figures 1A and 6 A wearable device (Figure 6) comprising: an integrated on-board camera (230); an integrated camera trigger (212) operable exclusively between a pressed condition and a released condition (Paragraph [0038]); onboard electronics comprising one or more computer processor devices (Paragraph [0083]) configured to perform operations comprising: identifying press duration (Paragraph [0043]) of a user input received via the camera trigger (212); if the press duration is shorter than a predefined photo trigger period (short press), automatically capturing video content via the camera (230); and if the press duration exceeds the photo trigger period (long press), automatically capturing photo content via the camera (Paragraph [0038]).
3: As for Claim 2, Moskovchenko et al teaches wherein the onboard electronics is configured to by default maintain the camera in a dormant mode (standby mode) while the wearable device is in active use during wear, and to automatically boot up (exit standby mode) the camera to an active mode (sensor mode or video mode) responsive to user-disposal of the camera trigger (212) to the pressed condition at initiation of the user input. Moskovchenko et al teaches in Paragraph [0037] the display can display power mode information indicating if the camera is in standby mode, sensor mode or video mode). Therefore, Moskovchenko et al teaches a system that can be in standby mode and enter video mode when the input mechanism (212) is pressed.
4: As for Claim 9, Moskovchenko et al teaches in Paragraph [0081] and depicts in Figures 1A and 6 wherein the wearable device is an eyewear device comprising a lens-carrying eyewear frame (602) in which the camera (230) is incorporated, the camera trigger (212) being housed on the eyewear frame (602).
5: As for Claim 11, Moskovchenko et al teaches in Paragraph [0038] wherein the onboard electronics is further configured to perform operations comprising: upon initiation of the user input via the camera trigger (button pressed), disposing the eyewear device (600) in a video capture mode in which release of the camera trigger initiates video capture (Moskovchenko et al teaches video or photo capture for a given time duration or a number of frames (burst capture) may be triggered in response to a single short button press. The examiner asserts that In order for the system to determine that the press was short, the activation could not occur until the holding duration ends); thereafter, while the press duration is shorter than the photo trigger period, maintaining the eyewear device in the video capture mode; and thereafter, in response to the press duration exceeding the photo trigger period, switching the eyewear device to a photo capture mode in which release of the camera trigger initiates photo capture.
6: As for Claim 12, Moskovchenko et al depicts in Figure 6 and teaches in Paragraph [0087] further comprising a mode indication mechanism (610) configured to indicate to a user, during the press duration, a current mode of the eyewear device selected from the video capture mode and the photo capture mode. Moskovchenko et al teaches illuminating an indicator when video is streaming.
7: As for Claim 13, Moskovchenko et al depicts in Figure 6 and teaches in Paragraph [0087] wherein the mode indication mechanism comprises an indicator light (614 and 616) positioned on the eyewear frame (602) to be visible to a wearer of the eyewear device.
8: As for Claim 14, Moskovchenko et al depicts in Figure 6 and teaches in Paragraph [0087] wherein the mode indication mechanism is configured such that a video mode indication provided during that the indicator light is illuminated in the video capture mode and is off in the photo capture mode, or vice versa.
9: As for Claim 17, Claim 17 is rejected for reasons discussed related to Claim 1.
10: As for Claim 18, Claim 18 is rejected for reasons discussed related to Claim 1.
11: As for Claim 19, Claim 19 is rejected for reasons discussed related to Claim 12.
12: As for Claim 20, Claim 20 is rejected for reasons discussed related to Claim 1.
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.
13: Claim(s) 3-7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190268668 A1 Moskovchenko et al in view of Official Notice.
14: As for Claim 4, Moskovchenko et al teaches in Paragraphs [0037 and 0038] wherein at least one of the camera controller (222) and the camera (230) is configured to: by default be maintained in a dormant mode (standby mode) during active worn use of the wearable device (600); and automatically to boot up (leave standby mode) to an active mode responsive to user-disposal of the camera trigger (212) to the pressed condition at initiation of the user input.
15: As for Claims 3 and 5-7, Moskovchenko et al teaches a camera system in an eyewear device that has a standby power feature. However, does not teach the specifics of the standby feature and does not teach what specific portions of the camera are powered down during standby operation.
Official Notice is taken that it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to shut down different portions of a camera system during standby mode depending on different operational modes to maximize power savings or increase the speed including shutting down the camera controller but not the camera, the camera but not the camera controller or both the camera and the camera controller depending on the desired level of power savings.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable the standby power saving mode of Moskovchenko et al to be configured to shut down different portions of the camera system during standby mode depending on different operational modes to maximize power savings or increase the speed including shutting down the camera controller but not the camera, the camera but not the camera controller or both the camera and the camera controller depending on the desired level of power savings in order to maximize power savings.
16: As for Claim 16, Moskovchenko et al teaches in Paragraphs [0052 and 0082] a camera system in an eyewear device wherein the mode indication mechanism having an indicator light to indicate the current mode and an ambient light sensor. However, does not teach the intensity of the illumination of the indicator is variable depending on ambient lighting conditions.
Official Notice is taken that it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the brightness of a display based on the detected ambient lighting in order to improve the image recognition on the screen in a high ambient light environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the brightness of the display of Moskovchenko et al including the indicator lights based on the detected ambient lighting from the ambient light sensor in order to improve the image recognition on the screen in a high ambient light environment.
17: Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190268668 A1 Moskovchenko et al in view of US 2015/0009309 A1 Heinrich et al.
18: As for Claim 10, Moskovchenko et al depicts in Figures 1B and 6 a camera trigger button mechanism on the eyewear frame (depicted on the side of the frame in Figure 1B) and being manually disposable to the pressed condition (the button can be pressed). However, Moskovchenko et al does not teach the shutter button is on a top surface of the eyewear frame.
Heinrich et al depicts in Figure 2 and teaches in Paragraphs [0021] smart glasses (12) having a built in camera (16) that is activated by a shutter button (24) disposed on the top of the eyewear frame (12). Heinrich et al teaches this location is advantageous because it is a very useful position because it is readily actuated by the wearer holding the frame with a thumb on the lower part of the frame and the "pointing" finger opposed to the thumb and on the button.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the capture button of Moskovchenko et al on the top of the eyewear frame as taught by Heinrich et al in order to improve the ease of use of the shutter button.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M HANNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7309. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM-5:00 PM Monday thru Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406 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).
/JAMES M HANNETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
JMH
August 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights