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, 2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 106054392 B (from IDS filed, see the provided translation) in view of Reitz et al (US 2014/0233041 A1).
Regarding claim 1, CN 106054392 B discloses a method for aligning an image sensor (Fig. 4, reference number 2) with an optical device (reference number 7), the method comprising:
mechanically coupling at least one component (lens 7) of the optical device to a mechanical assembly (display screen 8, abstract “alignment methods … optical lens and display screen in a kind of VR equipment” the elements 1, 2, 5 ,7 and 8 of Fig. 4 are mechanically coupled in a VR equipment, such as VR headset or HMD) at a known orientation (the elements 1, 2, 5, 7 and 8 of Fig. 4 are arranged in a known orientation of VR equipment), the mechanical assembly (8) having a test pattern at a known
orientation (abstract “generating test pattern on a display screen according to the image parameter of pre-generating pattern”);
capturing an image of the test pattern (abstract “the test pattern imaged on optical lens is acquired by image collecting device, obtains correcting pattern”) when the image sensor is positioned at a first location in which the image sensor is aligned with the test pattern (Fig. 4, image collecting device 2 is aligned with “the optical center of optical lens (7) is aligned with the predetermined position of display screen, and the optical axis f optical lens is perpendicular to display screen”);
analyzing the captured image to determine an estimated orientation of the test pattern (abstract “judge whether reference pattern is overlapped with correcting pattern”); and
a comparison between the known orientation of the test pattern and the estimated orientation of the test pattern is disclosed (abstract “if being overlapped, it is determined that optical lens is aligned with display screen; if not being overlapped, the relative position of optical lens and display screen is adjusted”.
However, the prior art does not disclose the step of adjusting an orientation parameter of the image sensor based on a comparison between the known orientation of the test pattern and the estimated orientation of the test pattern.
Reitz discloses adjusting an orientation parameter of the image sensor based on a comparison between the known orientation of the test pattern and the estimated orientation of the test pattern (para 78 “The completion of the adjustment is confirmed at 318 by comparing new orientation sensor parameters interrogated from the orientation sensor to the previously stored orientation calibration parameter”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention before the effective filing date to adjust an orientation parameter of the image sensor based on a comparison between the known orientation of the test pattern and the estimated orientation of the test pattern as taught by Reitz for the purpose of improving image accuracy and quality and further enhancing precision in specialized fields.
Regarding claim 2, the method of claim 1, further comprising:
capturing an image projected by the optical device when the image sensor is positioned at a
second location in which the image sensor is aligned with the optical device (summary of invention “second pattern is used to make the optical axis of the optical lens to hang down directly in the display screen” orthogonal).
Regarding claim 5, CN 106054392 B (from IDS filed, see the provided translation) in view of Reitz et al (US 2014/0233041 A1) discloses the claimed invention as set forth above except for wherein the test pattern is vertically oriented relative to a reference axis.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention before the effective filing date to vertically orient the test pattern relative to a reference axis for the purpose of detecting and separating of tilt and rotation errors and enhancing sensitivity to small rotational misalignments in high-volume production.
Regarding claim 6, CN 106054392 B (from IDS filed, see the provided translation) in view of Reitz et al (US 2014/0233041 A1) discloses the claimed invention as set forth above except for wherein the test pattern is horizontally oriented relative to a reference axis.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention before the effective filing date to horizontally orient the test pattern relative to a reference axis for the purpose of detecting and separating of tilt and rotation errors and enhancing sensitivity to small rotational misalignments in high-volume production.
Regarding claim 7, CN 106054392 B (from IDS filed, see the provided translation) in view of Reitz et al (US 2014/0233041 A1) discloses the claimed invention as set forth above except for wherein the test pattern is oriented at an oblique angle relative to a reference axis.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention before the effective filing date to obliquely orient the test pattern relative to a reference axis for the purpose of detecting and separating of tilt and rotation errors and enhancing sensitivity to small rotational misalignments in high-volume production.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 106054392 B (from IDS filed, see the provided translation) in view of Reitz et al (US 2014/0233041 A1) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Balan et al (US 10,078,377 B2).
Regarding claim 4, CN 106054392 B (from IDS filed, see the provided translation) in view of Reitz et al (US 2014/0233041 A1) discloses the claimed invention as set forth above except for wherein the orientation parameter of the image sensor includes an angle of rotation about a principle axis of the image sensor.
Balan discloses the orientation parameter of the image sensor includes an angle of rotation about a principle axis of the image sensor (see claim 18 “one or more sensors for determining orientation data of the HMD and wherein the orientation data for the HMD is defined by pitch (elevation angle), yaw (azimuth angle) and roll (rotation) relative to a predetermined frame of reference”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention before the effective filing date to have the orientation parameter of the image sensor includes an angle of rotation about a principle axis of the image sensor for the purpose of preventing awkward mount angles and stabilization.
Regarding claim 8, in combination, the method of claim 1, wherein the orientation of the test pattern is defined by at least one orientation parameter, and wherein the at least one orientation
parameter of the test pattern includes an angular position of the test pattern relative to a reference axis (Balan, see claim 18 “one or more sensors for determining orientation data of the HMD and wherein the orientation data for the HMD is defined by pitch (elevation angle), yaw (azimuth angle) and roll (rotation) relative to a predetermined frame of reference”).
Claims 9, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 106054392 B (from IDS filed, see the provided translation) in view of Reitz et al (US 2014/0233041 A1) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Hult et al (US 2009/0086179 A1)
Regarding claim 9, CN 106054392 B (from IDS filed, see the provided translation) in view of Reitz et al (US 2014/0233041 A1) discloses the claimed invention as set forth above except for wherein the test pattern is formed as an aperture in the mechanical assembly.
Hult discloses the test pattern that is formed as an aperture in the mechanical assembly (para 18 “it is possible to vary reference positions of the test pattern and/or the aperture of the detector to measure position dependency of stray light across a complete imaging field”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention before the effective filing date to make the test pattern formed as an aperture in the mechanical assembly since these two elements perform similar, making the test pattern as an aperture would simplify the manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 10, in combination, the method of claim 1, further comprising: illuminating the test pattern (Hult, para 38, an illumination system IL).
Regarding claim 12, in combination, the method of claim 1, wherein the optical device includes at least a display source, an illumination module, an illumination prism assembly, and a
collimating prism assembly (Hult, see Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 11 and 13 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 3, claim is allowable at least for the reason that the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest wherein the optical device includes an image projecting device and a light waves-transmitting substrate, the method further comprising: coupling light waves, corresponding to an image projected by the image projecting device, into the light waves-transmitting substrate; coupling the coupled-in light waves out of the substrate as image light waves; and capturing the image light
waves with the image sensor when the image sensor is positioned at a second location in which the image sensor is aligned with the light waves-transmitting substrate as set forth in the claimed combination.
Regarding claim 11, claim is allowable at least for the reason that the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest further comprising: moving the image sensor to the first location prior to capturing the image of the test pattern; and moving the image sensor to the second location after capturing the image of the test pattern as set forth in the claimed combination.
Regarding claim 13, claim is allowable at least for the reason that the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest further comprising: aligning the illumination module and the display source with the illumination prism assembly such that light waves emitted by the illumination module arrive at the display source via the illumination prism assembly; displacing the display source along a displacement axis to adjust a distance between the display source and the collimating prism assembly; and translationally moving, in unison, the display source, the illumination prism assembly, and the illumination module in a plane normal to the displacement axis as set forth in the claimed combination.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,762,169. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed features are already patented in a parent case.
US Patent Appication No. 18/239,784
Parent Patent No. 11,762,169
1. A method for aligning an image sensor with an optical device, the method comprising: mechanically coupling at least one component of the optical device to a mechanical assembly at a known orientation, the mechanical assembly having a test pattern at a known orientation; capturing an image of the test pattern when the image sensor is positioned at a first location in which the image sensor is aligned with the test pattern; analyzing the captured image to determine an estimated orientation of the test pattern; and adjusting an orientation parameter of the image sensor based on a comparison between the known orientation of the test pattern and the estimated orientation of the test pattern.
16. The method of claim 1, further comprising: mechanically coupling the illumination prism assembly and the illumination module to a mechanical assembly at a known orientation, the mechanical assembly including a test pattern at a known orientation defined by at least one orientation parameter; capturing an image of the test pattern when the image sensor is positioned at a first location in which the image sensor is aligned with the test pattern; analyzing the captured image to determine an estimated orientation of the test pattern; adjusting an orientation parameter of the image sensor based on a comparison between the known orientation of the test pattern and the estimated orientation of the test pattern; and capturing an image projected by the optical device when the image sensor is positioned at a second location in which the image sensor is aligned with the optical device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNCHA P CHERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-2310. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 7am to 3:30pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
1/30/2026
/EUNCHA P CHERRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872