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 .
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1, 9, 11 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myung et. al. [11,847,258] in view of Patel et. al. [10,065,111]
Regarding claim 1, Myung teaches:
A wearable electronic device configured to be worn on a head of a user [fig. 2, HMD unit 201],
the wearable electronic device comprising: a camera [fig. 1, item 180 or fig. 2, item 280-1 or 280-2];
a communication circuit [fig. 1, 190]; memory, comprising one or more storage media, storing instructions [fig. 1, item 130]; and at least one processor communicatively coupled to the camera [fig. 1, item 120],
the communication circuit, and the memory, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the wearable electronic device to: identify an external electronic device for controlling an input of the wearable electronic device while an input method of the wearable electronic device is operating in a first mode, based on identifying the external electronic device [fig. 6, observing external devices and sensing devices via camera, enabling user control via HMD 401],
receive, through the communication circuit, first information about at least one sensor of a plurality of sensors included in the external electronic device [fig. 6, observing external devices and sensing devices via camera, enabling user control via HMD 401], and based on the first information, change the input method of the wearable electronic device from the first mode to a second mode corresponding to the at least one sensor among a plurality of modes using the external electronic device [figs. 8-9, note changing input method based on detected user gaze location].
Myung does not teach the at least one sensor sensing a touch by a user's grip on the external electronic device. Patel teaches at least one sensor sensing a touch by a user's grip on the external electronic device [col. 7, lines 1-12].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the device taught by Myung with the grip detection taught by Patel because “The sensors' ability to detect various types of user interaction facilitates a comprehensive set of measurements that improve accuracy and precision when mapping user interaction to hand positions.” [Patel, paragraph spanning cols. 1-2]
Claims 11 and 19 are substantially similar to claim 1 and are rejected using the same citations.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Patel further teaches:
wherein the plurality of sensors included in the external electronic device are disposed on a handle portion of the external electronic device, and wherein the plurality of sensors included in the external electronic device are disposed at different locations from each other [fig. 2, touch sensors 112].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the device taught by Myung with the grip detection taught by Patel because “The sensors' ability to detect various types of user interaction facilitates a comprehensive set of measurements that improve accuracy and precision when mapping user interaction to hand positions.” [Patel, paragraph spanning cols. 1-2]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 10, 12-17 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 2-4, the prior art does not teach “…wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the wearable electronic device to: based on identifying that a first sensor corresponding to a first position and a second sensor corresponding to a second position among the plurality of sensors included in the external electronic device sense the touch by the user's grip, change the first mode to a controller mode for identifying the input of the wearable electronic device using the external electronic device.”
Regarding claims 5-7, the prior art does not teach “…wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the wearable electronic device to: based on identifying that a first sensor corresponding to a first position and a third sensor corresponding to a third position among the plurality of sensors included in the external electronic device sense the touch by the user's grip, change the first mode to a handwriting mode for inputting a handwriting input using the external electronic device.”
Regarding claim 8, the prior art does not teach “…wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the wearable electronic device to: based on receiving the first information indicating that a first sensor corresponding to a first position and a third sensor corresponding to a third position sense the touch by the user's grip even if the external electronic device is not identified, change the first mode to a handwriting mode for inputting a handwriting input using the external electronic device.”
Regarding claim 10, the prior art does not teach “…wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the wearable electronic device to: after the input method of the external electronic device is changed to the second mode corresponding to the at least one sensor, identify whether the at least one sensor senses the touch by the user's grip through the external electronic device; based on identifying that the at least one sensor senses the touch by the user's grip, maintain the second mode; and based on identifying that the at least one sensor does not sense the touch by the user's grip, change the second mode to the first mode.”
Regarding claims 12-14, the prior art does not teach “…wherein the changing of the first mode to the second mode comprises: when identifying that a first sensor corresponding to a first position and a second sensor corresponding to a second position among the plurality of sensors included in the external electronic device have sensed the touch by the user's grip, changing the first mode to a controller mode for identifying a user input for the wearable electronic device by using the external electronic device.”
Regarding claims 15-17, the prior art does not teach “…wherein the changing of the first mode to the second mode comprises: when identifying that a first sensor corresponding to a first position and a third sensor corresponding to a third position among the plurality of sensors included in the external electronic device have sensed the touch by a grip, changing the first mode to a handwriting mode for inputting a handwriting input by using the external electronic device.”
Regarding claim 20, the prior art does not teach “…the operations further comprising: based on identifying that a first sensor corresponding to a first position and a second sensor corresponding to a second position among the plurality of sensors included in the external electronic device sense the touch by the user's grip, changing the first mode to a controller mode for identifying the input of the wearable electronic device using the external electronic device.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lu [2025/0044883], teaching handwriting input mode on a digital device
Lee et. al. [2016/0046294], teaching detecting of user grip pressure on an external device
Walker et. al. [2025/0298505], teaching detection of pressure applies to an external user manipulation digital stylus tip.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SASINOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5883. The examiner can normally be reached 7am - 4pm, Mon.-Fri. 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, William Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
/ANDREW SASINOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights