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 claim(s) 1-3 and 5-12 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
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8, and 11-12 is/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”).
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).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/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(s) 9 is/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 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.
Claim(s) 10 is/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 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.
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.
/WILLIAM BODDIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights