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
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 - 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magyari et al (US 2014/0320972) in view of Li et al (CN 110780445 where US 2023/0016649 is used as an English translation) and Jamieson et al (US 2003/0043363).
With regards to claims 1, 12, 13 and 17, Magyari teaches a method of assembling a head-mounted display (Abstract) comprising supporting a head-mounted display frame with a support mechanism (claim 17) and securing two projector assemblies to the head-mounted display frame (claim 17). Magyari fails to explicitly disclose an alignment method prior to securing the projector assembly to the head-mounted display frame.
Li discloses an active alignment for assembling optical imaging systems (Abstract, paragraph 5), in the same field of endeavor as Magyari, where Li states that the method comprises determining a location and orientation of a frame coordinate system of a frame relative to a support mechanism (paragraph 24); digitally adjusting an optical coordinate system of an optical sensor to align the optical coordinate system with the frame coordinate system to within a predetermined threshold (paragraphs 27 and 29); and moving with at least one projector holder, two projector assemblies with the optical coordinate system of the optical sensor to within another predetermined threshold, different than the predetermined threshold (paragraph 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Li’s adjustment method in Magyari’s assembling method. The rationale being that, as stated by Li, it allows to ensure that optical devices such as augmented reality or virtual reality devices function properly (paragraph 2).
Magyari and Li fail to explicitly disclose that digitally translating and/or rotating the optical coordinate system comprises maintaining the head-mounted display frame in a fixed location in the support mechanism such that the frame functions as an optical bench for subsequent projector alignment.
Jamieson discloses a combined system of a LOAS and a LIDAR system (Abstract), in the same field of endeavor as Magyari and Li, where Jamieson states that circuit, laser source, light detector and beam splitter are all mounted on an optical bench in a proper alignment to create optical paths (paragraph 54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the step of digitally translating and/or rotating the optical coordinate system comprises maintaining the head-mounted display frame in a fixed location in the support mechanism such that the frame functions as an optical bench for subsequent projector alignment in Magyari and Li’s method, as suggested by Jamieson. The rationale being that, as stated by Jamieson, it allows for proper alignment to create optical paths (paragraph 54).
With regards to claim 2, the teachings of Magyari, Li and Jamieson are presented above. Additionally, Li teaches that moving the at least on projector assembly comprises manipulating the at least one projector holder in at least three degrees of freedom (paragraph 22).
With regards to claims 3 and 15, the teachings of Magyari, Li and Jamieson are presented above. Additionally, Li teaches that moving the at least one projector assembly comprises manipulating the at least one projector holder in at least six degrees of freedom (paragraph 22).
With regards to claim 4, the teachings of Magyari, Li and Jamieson are presented above. Additionally, Li teaches that aligning the projected image with the optical coordinate system to within the other predetermined threshold comprises aligning the projected image with an optical target of the optical coordinate system to within 10 arcminutes (paragraph 53).
With regards to claim 5, the teachings of Magyari, Li and Jamieson are presented above. Additionally, Li teaches that aligning the projected image with the optical coordinate system to within the other predetermined threshold comprises aligning the projected image with an optical target of the optical coordinate system to within 5 arcminutes (paragraph 53).
With regards to claim 6, the teachings of Magyari, Li and Jamieson are presented above. Additionally, Li teaches that the at least one projector holder comprises at least one of a hexapod, a linear stage or a goniometer for moving the at least one projector holder relative to the optical coordinate system (paragraph 24).
With regards to claim 7, the teachings of Magyari, Li and Jamieson are presented above. Additionally, Magyari teaches that supporting the head-mounted display frame with the support mechanism comprises fixing and maintaining the head-mounted display frame in place relative to the optical sensor until the projector assembly is secured to the head-mounted display frame (claim 17).
With regards to claim 8, the teachings of Magyari, Li and Jamieson are presented above. Additionally, Li teaches that the method further comprises determining an initial frame position of the head-mounted display frame relative to the optical coordinate system of the optical sensor (paragraph 25).
With regards to claim 9, the teachings of Magyari, Li and Jamieson are presented above. Additionally, Li teaches that determining the initial frame position comprises optically sensing at least one fiducial on the head-mounted display frame with data from the optical sensor (paragraph 25).
With regards to claim 10, the teachings of Magyari, Li and Jamieson are presented above. Additionally, Li teaches that the method further comprises determining an initial projector position of the at least one projector assembly relative to the optical coordinate system of the optical sensor (paragraph 75).
With regards to claim 11, the teachings of Magyari, Li and Jamieson are presented above. Additionally, Li teaches that determining the initial projector position of the at least one projector assembly comprises optically sensing the projected image with the optical sensor (paragraph 80).
With regards to claim 14, the teachings of Magyari, Li and Jamieson are presented above. Additionally, Li teaches that mechanically aligning the projected image with the optical coordinate system comprises spatially manipulating, with at least one projector holder, the at least one projector assembly relative to the optical sensor (paragraph 24).
With regards to claim 16, the teachings of Magyari, Li and Jamieson are presented above. Additionally, Magyari teaches that securing the at least one projector assembly to the head-mounted display frame comprises applying an adhesive between the at least one projector assembly and the head-mounted display frame and curing the adhesive (paragraph 155).
With regards to claim 18, the teachings of Magyari, Li and Jamieson are presented above. Additionally, Li teaches that digitally aligning the optical coordinate system with the frame coordinate comprises maintaining the head-mounted display frame in a fixed location and orientation and digitally moving an optical target of the optical sensor (paragraph 59).
With regards to claim 19, the teachings of Magyari, Li and Jamieson are presented above. Additionally, Li teaches that digitally aligning the optical coordinate system with the frame coordinate system to within the predetermined threshold comprises aligning the optical coordinate system to the frame coordinate system to an accuracy of within 5 arcminutes in rotation and within 1 mm in translation (paragraph 53).
Response to Arguments
Due to Applicant’s amendment, Applicant’s arguments, filed April 27, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 - 19 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Jamieson et al (US 2003/0043363) as presented above.
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 JOSHEL RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)270-7655. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12pm - 8pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/JOSHEL RIVERA/Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights