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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 3-6, 8 10, 12-14, 16, 19, 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over, US 20170364144 A1 Petrov in view of US 20120068913 A1 Bar-Zeev.
Regarding Claims 1, 8, 12-14, 16, Petrov teaches a head-mounted display (Petrov, Fig. 1) (HMD) comprising:
a housing made of an infrared (IR)-transmissive material (Petrov, Fig. 1), wherein an outer surface of the housing is coated with a selectively opaque material (Petrov, Fig. 1, paragraph 0036, housing is visible light opaque but IR light transmissive),
one or more IR emitters disposed inside the housing directly behind the one or more holes (Petrov, Fig. 1 paragraph [0057] element 190).
Petrov fails to teach; however, Bar-Zeev teaches:
IR-opaque material (Bar-Zeev, Fig. 7A paragraph 0083, whole of the system is transparent, however an outer coating opaque to IR light with a small IR-transmissive window cut within)
and wherein one or more locations on the outer surface are devoid of the IR-opaque material to provide one or more IR-transmissive windows on the housing (Bar-Zeev, Fig. 7A paragraph 0083, whole of the system is transparent, however an outer coating opaque to IR light with a small IR-transmissive window cut within); and
one or more IR sensors disposed outside the housing directly in front of the one or more IR-transmissive windows (Bar-Zeev, Fig. 7A paragraph 0083, whole of the system is transparent, however an outer coating opaque to IR light with a small IR-transmissive window cut within, a sensor as well as an emitter are provided here for eye detection however the sensor can be used for other items).
There are two modifications that can be made here, one is to use the IR-opaque material of Bar-Zeer and allow holes to be made in areas where detection is needed. This type of outer layer serves the same function as the Petrov system in order allow IR light to pass through in specific areas of the transparent system. The use of either coating would provide more flexibility in construction.
The second modification would be to change the emitters of Petrov to a sensor system of Bar-Zeer. The emitters of Petrov work with an IR sensor in order to provide orientation / position / model behavior of the HMD, however the sensor is not on device, instead the device itself emits the IR light and the sensor picks up the location of the emitters. However, another solution is provided by Bar-Zeer, where the sensors can be instead provided on the device itself. The location of the sensors would still be recessed into the surface of the outer housing along with areas that are transparent to IR light, however the tracking module can then be shifted onto the HMD itself providing a more compact system.
It’s noted that emitters and sensors may be used interchangeably in this modification.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the HMD system of Petrov, with the cover and sensor system of Bar-Zeev.
Regarding Claims 3, 10, 19, Petrov in view of Bar-Zeev, further teaches wherein a thickness of the housing at the one or more locations is thinner than a thickness of a remainder of the housing (Petrov, Fig. 1 holes in the housing are clearly not the same thickness as the rest of the housing).
Regarding Claim 4, Petrov in view of Bar-Zeer, further teaches wherein the one or more IR sensors are mounted to an inner surface of the housing behind the one or more locations (Petrov, Fig. 1 element 190 paragraph 0057 Bar-Zeer IR sensor embedded within the surface of the housing).
Regarding Claim 5, Petrov in view of Bar-Zeer further teaches wherein the one or more locations are circular in shape to provide one or more circular IR-transmissive windows on the housing (Petrov, Fig. 1 element 190 paragraph 0057 circular holes).
Regarding Claim 6, Petrov in view of Bar-Zeev further teaches wherein the one or more IR-transmissive windows comprise a plurality of IR-transmissive windows (Petrov, Fig. 1 element 190 paragraph 0057 multiple sensors/emitters).
Regarding claim 21, Petrov in view of Bar-Zeev further teaches wherein the electronic device comprises a head-mounted display (HMD), and wherein the one or more spectrum-transmissive windows are located along one or more sides of a front of the HMD (Petrov, Fig. 1 element 190 multiple emitters or sensors as taught by Bar-Zeev).
Regarding claim 22, Petrov in view of Bar-Zeev further teaches wherein the electronic device comprises a head-mounted display (HMD), and wherein the one or more spectrum-specific components are one or more beacons configured to emit the electromagnetic radiation in the specific spectrum for use in an optical tracking system that tracks a pose of the HMD as the HMD moves within a volume (Petrov, Fig. 1 element 190 multiple emitters, paragraphs 0057 and 0058).
Regarding Claim 23, Petrov in view of Bar-Zeev further teaches wherein the one or more spectrum-specific components are mounted to an inner surface of the housing at the one or more locations such that the one or more spectrum-specific components are positioned closer to the outer surface of the housing than if the thickness of the housing at the one or more locations were the same as the thickness of the remainder of the housing (Petrov, Fig. 1 multiple holes along the front and side of the HMD housing, if they were not present then the emitters/sensors would have to be mounted on top of the housing).
Regarding Claim 24, wherein the thickness of the housing at the one or more locations is thinner than the thickness of the remainder of the housing due to recessions defined in an inner surface of the housing at the one or more locations (Petrov, Fig. 1 multiple holes with emitters/sensors recessed therein, along the front and side of the HMD housing).
Claims 2, 11, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170364144 A1 Petrov in view of US 20120068913 A1 Bar-Zeev and further in view of US 20130234914 A1 Fujimaki
Regarding Claims 2, 11, 17 Petrov in view of Bar-Zeev fails to teach however Fujimaki teaches wherein the outer surface is coated with an IR-transmissive coating that substantially covers the IR-opaque material and the one or more locations (Fujimaki protective plate, paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add the protective and transmissive layer of Fujimaki to the combined teachings of Petrov and Bar-Zeev in order to better protect the HMD.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170364144 A1 Petrov in view of US 20120068913 A1 Bar-Zeev and further in view of US 20020003571 A1 Schofield
Regarding Claim 9, Petrov in view of Bar-Zeer fails to explicitly teach however Schofield teaches wherein removing the second material comprises laser etching the second material away from the outer surface (Schofield paragraph 0286).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use laser etching to cut the needed openings in order to improve precision and allow for accurate reproduction of the needed size of the holes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ke Xiao whose telephone number is 571-272-7776. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri from 6AM-2PM.
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.
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.
/KE XIAO/SPE, Art Unit 2627
Prosecution Insights