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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 11/03/2025. Claims 1-5 are amended and claims 1-7 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a housing; a holding member which is connected to the housing; a display unit, wherein the display unit is pivotable to the holding member; and an optical plate … wherein the display unit accommodates the optical plate”. The metes and bounds of the phrasing cannot be determined in light of the Specifications on account of the grammatical interplay between “housing”, “display unit”, “optical plate” and “accommodates”. According to the claim, the display unit, and not the housing connected to the holding member, is pivotable to the holding member. Further the display unit in the Specifications is limited in “image display device 20 may include a housing 30 and a display unit 35…[t]he housing 30 accommodates the image generation unit, and the display unit 35 accommodates the optical plate” ([0066]) and “the display unit that internally accommodates the optical plate”, “the display unit and the optical plate accommodated in the display unit are also configured to be position-adjustable and position-holdable” ([0081]). The structural boundaries of “housing”, “display unit” and “optical plate” are unclear as there appears to be a simultaneous requirement for the display unit to include the housing and for the display unit to include only the optical plate. There is neither a disclosure nor a claim limitation that accounts for the image generation unit nor subunits thereof. In summary, it is unclear that the language concerning the “display unit” adds any patentable weight to the claimed invention beyond that which is already required in limiting the optical plate. For that reason, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. For the purpose of examination, the term “display unit” and “optical plate” will be synonymous and “the display unit accommodates the optical plate” is understood to mean “the display unit is the optical plate”.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. 2006/0119539 to Kato et al. (hereinafter Kato) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 9,0094,677 to Mendis, et al. (hereinafter Mendis).
Regarding claim 1, Kato discloses a head-mounted display (Fig. 30) comprising: a housing (main body part 11, Fig. 4 & 30); holding member (supporting member 13a, Fig. 30) which is connected to the housing; an optical plate (display part 11, Fig. 4, 30) arranged in front of an eyeball of a user (Fig. 30) and configured to control image display light to reach the eyeball ([0266]-[0271]), the display unit accommodates the optical plate (“the liquid crystal panel 29”, Figs. 4 & 30); wherein the optical plate is pivotable in a left-right direction along an arc (“the display part 11 can swing in the left-right direction; here, since the pins 11b are constrained by the slots 13e, pivoting occurs with the curvature centers of the slots 13g as pivoting centers”; [0266]-[0271]) centered about a center of the eyeball as a pivot center (“curvature centers of the slots 13e are arranged so that the positions of these centers coincide with the center of rotation 47 of the eyeball when the head mounted display main body part 1 is mounted on the head”; [0266]-[0271]).
Kato discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the optical plate is optically see-through and the image display light travels inside the optically see-through optical plate.
Mendis discloses a head-mounted display (Figs. 8-10), comprising: a housing (e.g. display unit 2009, Fig. 10); a holding member (extension arm 2008, Fig. 10) which is connected to the housing: a display unit (display 180, Figs. 8-10), wherein the display unit is pivotable to the holding member (Figs. 8-10; col. 13, ln. 1-col. 15, ln. 9); and an optical plate (display 180, Figs. 8-10) arranged in front of an eyeball of a user and configured to control image display light to reach the eyeball, wherein the display unit accommodates the optical plate (Figs. 8-10), the optical plate is optically see-through and the image display light travels inside the optically see-through optical plate (“HMD 172 may include a single display 180, which may be coupled to one of the side-arms 173A via the component housing 176. In an example embodiment, the display 180 may be a see-through display, which is made of glass and/or another transparent or translucent material, such that the wearer can see their environment through the display 180”) and the optical plate is pivotable in a left-right direction along an arc, centered about a center of the eyeball as a pivot center (“Distance 915 may be the distance between a point near the eye and a point near the display (or projected image). The point near the eye may be the center of the eye, the back of the eye, or the outermost surface of the eye (e.g. cornea). The point near the display may be the center of the display, the outer surface of the display, the beam splitter within the display, or the perceived distance of the projected image”; col. 14, ll. 6-12).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a pivotable see-through optical plate as taught by Mendis with the system as disclosed by Kato. The motivation would have been to superimpose the displayed image over a view of the surrounding environment (col. 1, ll. 44-48).
Regarding claim 2, Kato discloses the optical plate is further pivotable in an up-down direction about the pivot center (“he tip end part 13a is caused to pivot in the vertical direction by the rotation of the motor 48. This axis of rotation is located exactly to the side of the center of rotation 47 of the eyeball in the mounted state of the head mounted display main body part 1, so that an extension line 49 of the axis of rotation passes through the center of rotation 47 of the eyeball, Fig. 30; [0266]-[0271]).
Regarding claim 3, Kato discloses the optical plate is further pivotable in at least one direction of the left-right direction, an up-down direction, and a front-back direction with respect to the eyeball (movement via motor 55 of end 13c, Fig. 30, [0241]).
Regarding claim 4, Kato discloses a frame (e.g. mounting part 15 and holding parts 19, Fig. 30) mounted on a head portion of the user, the frame has flexibility, wherein the frame is mounted in a circumferential direction of the head portion over a right temporal region, an occipital region, and a left temporal region, and at least one of a right frontal region or a left frontal region of the user (Fig. 30).
Regarding claim 5, Kato discloses the image display light forms a character image corresponding to spoken voice of a speaker, and the optical plate is configured to allow the user to visually recognize the speaker (display part 11 with the liquid crystal panel 29, Figs. 4, 30; [0002]). This claim is directed to nonfunctional descriptive matter that does not patentably distinguish the structure over prior art structure capably performing the operation. In this instance, the LCD display is capable of displaying character images as it is capable of displaying a video.
Regarding claim 6, Kato discloses the head-mounted display is for hearing assistance (display part 11 with the liquid crystal panel 29, Figs. 4, 30; [0002]). This claim is directed to nonfunctional descriptive matter that does not patentably distinguish the structure over prior art structure capably performing the operation. In this instance, the LCD display is capable of displaying character images as it is capable of displaying a video.
Regarding claim 7, Kato discloses the head-mounted display is a monocular type (Fig. 30).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST M-F.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872