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.
Claims 1, 5-8, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olgun (US 11237412) in view of Togashi (US 20170279183).
With respect to claim 1, Olgun discloses a head mounted display, comprising: a frame (105 in fig. 1A); and a display device mounted to the frame (180A/B in fig. 2A; col. 2, lines 58-64), the display device being transparent (col. 6, lines 35-44) and including:
a first base substrate (804 in fig. 8A);
a wiring board to cover an entire area of the first base substrate (806 in fig. 8A; col. 10, lines 42-46; disclose that the upper surface S2 includes at least one antenna),
a display unit (180C and D in fig. 2A) provided between the first base substrate and the wiring board (802 in fig. 8A; col. 10, lines 39-42; the display is provided on the active surface) the display unit having a smaller size than the first base substrate and overlapping a center portion of the first base substrate (fig. 2B-C discloses display units, 180C-D that are both smaller than the full substrates 180A-B and overlap a center of the substrates), and
the wiring board including a substrate (806 in fig. 8A) having transparency (col. 10, lines 47-49 details the 806 substrate is composed of glass), and a wiring pattern area (col. 10, lines 42-46 detail an antenna on the 806 substrate) arranged on the substrate.
Olgun discloses that the antenna location are embedded into the lenses (col. 11, lines 12-16), but is silent as to whether the wiring pattern area overlaps the display unit or is provided close to the rim.
Togashi discloses a wiring pattern area (20 and 21 in fig. 1; antenna; para. 22) is provided close to a rim of the frame (para. 51, “by forming the antennas 20 and 21 at the outer perimeter of the lenses”).
Neither Olgun nor Togashi expressly disclose a minimum distance between the wiring pattern area and the display unit is 0.1 mm or greater as recited. Olgun discloses the display area of the lenses encompasses less than the entire area of the lens and is located centrally in the user's field of view (180C, 180D; see col. 10, lines 63-col. 4, line 3; Fig. 1A ). Togashi discloses the importance of the placement of the antenna to be free of disturbing the passive display area in the line of view of the user (paragraph 51; Figs. 1, 4-7). As such Togashi clearly has determined that the distance between the wiring pattern and the central visual field of the user is a result of effective variable. Therefore, proposed combination of the placement of the wiring pattern of Togashi, on the lenses having the display area of Olgun would be within a 0.1 mm or greater distance between the two. Such a placement would be mere optimization of the result effective variable that Togashi has highlighted. Furthermore it should be noted that 0.1mm is equivalent to the thickness of a piece of paper. Seemingly any obvious combination of Olgun and Togashi as proposed would result in a nearly adjacent placement of the display and antenna.
Olgun and Togashi are from the same field of endeavor namely electronic glassware.
At the time of filing the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have located the antenna’s taught by Olgun along the outer rim of the lenses as taught by Togashi. The motivation for doing so would have been to maintain a good field of view (Togashi; para. 51). The proposed combination would predictably result in the antennas of Olgun being positioned both closer to the frame rim and not overlapping with the display unit of Olgun.
With respect to claim 5, Olgun in view of Togashi disclose, the head mounted display according to claim 1 (see above) the wiring pattern area has at least one of a radio-wave transmitting-and-receiving function (Olgun; col. 10, lines 44-46), a gesture sensing function, a wireless power feeding function, and an anti-fog function (it should be noted that the current claim language is being interpreted to be disjunctive. That is that the claim does not require at least one radio wave function, at least one gesture function, at least one wireless power function AND at least one anti-fog function. Should applicant desire that this claim be interpreted to require conjunctively and thus require at least one of each function they should unequivocally state as such, and point to where there is support for such an interpretation).
With respect to claim 6, Olgun in view of Togashi discloses, the head mounted display according to claim 5 (see above).
Olgun further discloses, each as the wiring pattern area, a plurality of wiring pattern areas exists on the substrate, and the wiring pattern areas have functions different from one another (col. 2, lines 12-13 details multiple antennas for varied uses such as GPS, WIFI, and Bluetooth).
With respect to claim 7, Olgun in view of Togashi disclose, the head mounted display according to claim 1 (see above).
Olgun further discloses, at least a part of the pieces of wiring is arranged irregularly (fig. 8D demonstrates antennas that at not completely straight).
With respect to claim 8, Olgun in view of Togashi discloses, the head mounted display according to claim 5 (see above).
Olgun further discloses, the substrate includes glass or a resin film (col. 10, lines 46-50).
With respect to claim 11, Olgun in view of Togashi disclose the head mounted display according to claim 1 (see above).
Olgun in view of Togashi further discloses, a power feeding portion which is connected to and supplies power to the wiring pattern area (Olgun; col. 10, lines 56-59; “antenna patterns can be connected to the system electrical ground via a flex tail bonded to these surface”) (Togashi; fig. 2 details a power source 110; para. 34 details power source connections) and is provided at a position overlapping the rim of the frame (Togashi; fig. 1, para. 30 details that the control circuit is formed in the rim).
With respect to claim 12, Olgun in view of Togashi disclose the head mounted display according to claim 11 (see above).
Olgun in view of Togashi discloses, a wireless communication circuit (Togashi; 120 in fig. 2) (Olgun; wireless circuitry in fig. 9) which is electrically connected to the power feeding portion (Togashi; para. 34) (Olgun; col. 11, lines 26-28) and is provided at another position overlapping the rim of the frame (Togashi; fig. 1, para. 30 details that the control circuit is formed in the rim), wherein the another position is farther away from the wiring pattern area than the position is (the power feed lines for the antennas will necessarily be closer to the antenna as they directly couple to the antenna; compared to the RF wireless circuitry which is only electrically connected to the antenna via the power providing traces).
With respect to claim 13, Olgun in view of Togashi disclose the head mounted display according to claim 12 (see above).
Olgun further discloses, wherein at least a part of the pieces of wiring is arranged irregularly (fig. 8D demonstrates antennas that at not completely straight).
With respect to claim 14, Olgun in view of Togashi disclose the head mounted display according to claim 1 (see above).
Neither Olgun nor Togashi expressly disclose a minimum distance between the wiring pattern area and the display unit is 0.2 mm or greater as recited. Olgun discloses the display area of the lenses encompasses less than the entire area of the lens and is located centrally in the user's field of view (180C, 180D; see col. 10, lines 63-col. 4, line 3; Fig. 1A ). Togashi discloses the importance of the placement of the antenna to be free of disturbing the passive display area in the line of view of the user (paragraph 51; Figs. 1, 4-7). As such Togashi clearly has determined that the distance between the wiring pattern and the central visual field of the user is a result effective variable. Therefore, proposed combination of the placement of the wiring pattern of Togashi, on the lenses having the display area of Olgun would be within a 0.2 mm or greater distance between the two. Such a placement would be mere optimization of the result effective variable that Togashi has highlighted. Furthermore it should be noted that 0.2mm is equivalent to the thickness of two pieces of paper.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olgun (US 11237412) in view of Togashi (US 20170279183) and further in view of Satoh (WO 2018139111).
With respect to claim 2, Olgun in view of Togashi discloses the head mounted display according to claim 1 (see above).
Olgun nor Togashi expressly disclose, a second base substrate provided on the wiring board and, with the first base substrate, sandwiching the wiring board therebetween.
Satoh discloses, a second base substrate (65 in fig. 4; transparent cover layer) provided on the wiring board (63-64 in fig. 4; transparent plastic sheet and conductive part) and, with the first base substrate (11 in fig. 3; glass), sandwiching the wiring board therebetween (clear from figs. 2-4 that wiring board, 63-64, will be between 11 and 65).
Satoh, Olgun and Togashi are from the same field of endeavor namely electronic glassware.
At the time of filing the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included a second base substrate as taught by Sato in the combined device of Olgun and Togashi. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide additional protection to the wiring board. The proposed combination would have predictably resulted in an additional substrate overlaying the wiring board of Olgun/Togashi.
With respect to claim 3, Olgun in view of Togashi and Satoh discloses the system of claim 2 (see above).
Olgun in view of Togashi and Satoh further discloses the wiring pattern area and the display unit are shifted in position from each other when viewed in a thickness direction of the substrate (as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, arranging the antennas of Olgun along the lens perimeter will result in them being shifted in position, even in the thickness direction).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olgun (US 11237412) in view of Togashi (US 20170279183) and further in view of Tsunaichi et al. (JP 2020036031).
With respect to claim 9, Olgun in view of Togashi discloses, the head mounted display according to claim 1 (see above).
The combined Olgun and Togashi does not, but Tsunaichi discloses the wiring board includes a dummy pattern area (paragraphs [0147], [0170], Fig. 19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use Tsunaichi's dummy pattern area in the wiring board of the combined Olgun and Togashi to improve the function of the wiring board.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olgun (US 11237412) in view of Togashi (US 20170279183) and further in view of Suzuki (WO 2020066817).
With respect to claim 10, Olgun in view of Togashi disclose, the head mounted display according to claim 1 (see above).
Olgun nor Togashi expressly disclose the wiring pattern area has a sheet resistance value of 5 ohms per square or less, and a maximum width is 3 um or less when each of the pieces of wiring is viewed at a viewing angle of 120° (Suzuki, paragraphs [0051] and [0055]).
Suzuki discloses, the wiring pattern area has a sheet resistance value of 5 ohms per square or less, and a maximum width is 3 um or less when each of the pieces of wiring is viewed at a viewing angle of 120° (Suzuki, paragraphs [0051] and [0055]).
Suzuki, Olgun and Togashi are from the same field of endeavor namely electronic glassware.
At the time of filing the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have set sheet resistance and width of the antennas of Olgun/Togashi as taught by Suzuki. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve antenna efficiency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant states that Olgun in view of Togashi fails to disclose a. "the wiring pattern area of the wiring board does not overlap with the display unit," b. "the wiring pattern area is provided closer to a rim of the frame than the display unit is, and" c. "a minimum distance between the wiring pattern area and the display unit is 0.1 mm or greater." as recited. The applicant argues that Olgun does not disclose or suggest the features above, and further teaches away from them. The examiner finds that Olgun discloses the usage of an antenna provided on a surface of a non-active waveguide, wherein the embedded antennas remove constrains on the antenna designs, shape, and size, as well as the eyewear to accommodate the antennas in the frame (see column 10, line 30-column 11, line 16; Figs. 8). While disclosing the usage of a transparent antenna embedded in the display, the examiner acknowledges Olgun does not teach that the wiring pattern area does not overlap the display unit, or is provided close to the rim within the cited range.
Togashi is cited to teach the usage of an antenna provided on a lens portion, wherein the antenna is positioned at the edge of the frame to be less noticeable in the design of the electronic device (see paragraph 29, 44, 50). The applicant argues that Togashi discloses a wireless communication device, but not a display device, wherein the positioning of the antenna is to reduce SAR caused by the close proximity to the user’s head, and therefore cannot teach any positional relationship between a wiring pattern area and a display unit. The examiner disagrees. While Togashi does not disclose an active display, the lens area presents the user with a passive display viewable area wherein the antennas may be formed. Further, Togashi discloses that the antennas may be formed at any location on the lens portions. However, forming the antenna at the outer perimeter of the lenses maintains a good field of view (see paragraph 51). Therefore disclosing that the placement of the antennas with respect to the viewable area matters. Therefore, the examiner finds that the positioning of the antenna relative to the viewable area is taught by Togashi.
Therefore the combination of Olgun and Togashi disclose a head-mounted display having a display area and a wiring pattern area that does not overlap with the display unit and provide closer to a rim of the frame as recited.
Further with reference to the distance between the display area and the antenna being 0.1 mm or greater, the examiner finds that the combination of the teachings of Olgun and Togashi teach the recited minimum distance. Olgun discloses a display area that is central to the lenses, and Togashi discloses an antenna provided at the periphery of the lenses. The approximate width of 0.1 mm is equivalent to the width of a sheet of paper. As such, the examiner finds that the placement of the antenna of Togashi on the lenses of Olgun would have a minimum distance of 0.1 mm or greater. Therefore it would be obvious to provide the optimum distance to provide the necessary separation between the antenna and the display area to provide a clear view to the user. For these reasons the rejection is maintained.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
HINTERMANN et al (USPGPub2019/0229395) discloses an electronics-enabled eyewear device, or smart glasses, having a pair of optical lenses and an antenna system comprising a loop antenna disposed about the frame of the eyewear (see paragraphs 33-51; Figs. 1-7).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALECIA DIANE ENGLISH whose telephone number is (571)270-1595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 7:00am-3:00am.
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.
/Alecia D English/Examiner, Art Unit 2625 571-270-1595
Prosecution Insights