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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/23/23 and 4/9/24 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by Stafford (US 2024/0295735 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Stafford teaches (figs. 2 and 4) head-mounted device, comprising:
a head-mounted housing (200) having a front portion (para. 0053-0054) and a rear portion (400) that is removably attached to the front portion (para. 0055),
where the rear portion has a customized-fit layer with a pair of vision correction lenses (para. 055, lines 1-4);
and optical assemblies in the front portion of the head-mounted housing that are configured to provide images to respective eye boxes through the vision correction lenses (para. 0055, lines 10-12).
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebert et. al. (US 11,796,823 B1) in view of Stafford (US 2024/0295735 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Ebert teaches (figs. 1-2B and 5-7) head-mounted device, comprising:
a head-mounted housing (102) having a front portion (100; col. 3, line 59 – col. 4, line 3).
Ebert does not teach a rear portion that is removably attached to the front portion where the rear portion has a customized-fit layer with a pair of vision correction lenses.
Stafford teaches (figs. 2 and 4) a rear portion that is removably attached to the front portion where the rear portion has a customized-fit layer with a pair of vision correction lenses (para. 055, lines 1-4)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the arty before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the HMD as taught by Ebert with the personal prescription attachment as taught by Stafford for the benefit of a smaller form factor HMD with the inclusion of a user’s prescription lenses (see Stafford para. 0026-0027).
Ebert as modified by Stafford teaches where the optical assemblies in the front portion of the head-mounted housing that are configured to provide images to respective eye boxes through the vision correction lenses (col. 13, lines 19-23).
Regarding claim 2 Ebert teaches (figs. 1-2B and 5-7) head-mounted device, further comprising guide rails along which the optical assemblies slide (234; col. 7, lines 30-46).
Regarding claim 3 Ebert teaches (figs. 1-2B and 5-7) head-mounted device, further comprising motors configured to move the optical assemblies along the guide rails (col. 6, lines 9-15).
Regarding claim 4 Ebert teaches (figs. 1-2B and 5-7) head-mounted device, except for further comprising a sensor configured to obtain interpupillary distance information from the rear portion.
Stafford teaches a sensor configured to obtain interpupillary distance information from the rear portion (para. 0065-0066).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the arty before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the HMD as taught by Ebert with the personal prescription attachment as taught by Stafford for the benefit of a smaller form factor HMD with the inclusion of a user’s prescription lenses (see Stafford para. 0026-0027).
Regarding claim 5 Ebert teaches (figs. 1-2B and 5-7) head-mounted device, where the motors are configured to move the optical assemblies along the guide rails based on the obtained interpupillary distance information (steps 602-608; col. 11, lines 10 -58).
Regarding claim 6 Ebert teaches (figs. 1-2B and 5-7) head-mounted device, except where the sensor comprises a magnetic sensor.
Stafford teaches where the sensor comprises a magnetic sensor (para. 0041).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the arty before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the HMD as taught by Ebert with the personal prescription attachment as taught by Stafford for the benefit of a smaller form factor HMD with the inclusion of a user’s prescription lenses (see Stafford para. 0026-0027).
Regarding claim 7 Ebert teaches (figs. 1-2B and 5-7) head-mounted device where, the sensor comprises an image sensor.
Stafford teaches where the sensor comprises an image sensor (para. 0041).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the arty before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the HMD as taught by Ebert with the personal prescription attachment as taught by Stafford for the benefit of a smaller form factor HMD with the inclusion of a user’s prescription lenses (see Stafford para. 0026-0027).
Regarding claim 8 Ebert teaches (figs. 1-2B and 5-7) head-mounted device, where the sensor comprises a gaze tracker sensor.
Stafford teaches where the sensor comprises a gaze tracker sensor (para. 0053)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the arty before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the HMD as taught by Ebert with the personal prescription attachment as taught by Stafford for the benefit of a smaller form factor HMD with the inclusion of a user’s prescription lenses (see Stafford para. 0026-0027).
Regarding claim 9 Ebert teaches (figs. 1-2B and 5-7) head-mounted device, except for further comprising a code on the rear portion of the housing that is sensed by the gaze tracker sensor.
Stafford teaches a code on the rear portion of the housing that is sensed by the gaze tracker sensor (para. 0065-0066).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the arty before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the HMD as taught by Ebert with the personal prescription attachment as taught by Stafford for the benefit of a smaller form factor HMD with the inclusion of a user’s prescription lenses (see Stafford para. 0026-0027).
Regarding claim 10 Ebert teaches (figs. 1-2B and 5-7) head-mounted device, except where the code comprises a fiducial on one of the vision correction lenses.
Stafford teaches where the code comprises a fiducial on one of the vision correction lenses (para. 0065-0066).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the arty before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the HMD as taught by Ebert with the personal prescription attachment as taught by Stafford for the benefit of a smaller form factor HMD with the inclusion of a user’s prescription lenses (see Stafford para. 0026-0027).
Regarding claim 11 Ebert teaches (figs. 1-2B and 5-7) head-mounted device, except for further comprising a wireless transceiver configured to obtain interpupillary distance information from the rear portion.
Stafford teaches a wireless transceiver configured to obtain interpupillary distance information from the rear portion (para. 0037).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the arty before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the HMD as taught by Ebert with the personal prescription attachment as taught by Stafford for the benefit of a smaller form factor HMD with the inclusion of a user’s prescription lenses (see Stafford para. 0026-0027).
Regarding claim 12 Ebert as modified by Stafford teaches (figs. 1-2B and 5-7) head-mounted device, except where the motors are configured to move the optical assemblies along the guide rails based on the obtained interpupillary distance information (steps 602-608; col. 11, lines 10 -58).
Regarding claim 13 Ebert as modified by Stafford teaches (figs. 1-2B and 5-7) head-mounted device, where the front portion of the housing and the rear portion of the housing comprise cooperative mechanical structures that move the optical assemblies with respect to each other to match a lens-to-lens spacing associated with the vision correction lenses in the rear portion of the housing as the rear portion of the housing is attached to the front portion of the housing (col. 7, lines 47-58).
Regarding claim 14 Ebert as modified by Stafford teaches (figs. 1-2B and 5-7) head-mounted device, where the cooperative mechanical structures comprise teeth (col. 8, lines 41-57).
Regarding claim 15 Ebert teaches (figs. 1-2B and 5-7) head-mounted device, where the customized-fit layer has a customized nose bridge portion (col. 8, lines 41-57).
Regarding claim 16 Ebert teaches (figs. 1-2B and 5-7) head-mounted device,
where each optical assembly has a system lens and a display configured to provide a respective one of the images to a respective one of the eye boxes through that system lens and a respective one of the vision correction lenses in the rear portion of the housing (col. 13, lines 19-23).
Regarding claim 17 Ebert teaches (figs. 1-2B and 5-7) a head-mounted device, comprising:
a head-mounted housing (col. 3, line 59 – col. 4, line 3);
an optical assembly in the head-mounted housing that is configured to provide an image to an eye box (col. 13, lines 19-23);
a rail along which the optical assembly moves col. 7, lines 30-46);
a motor configured to move the optical assembly along the rail (col. 6, lines 9-15).
Ebert does not teach a head-mounted housing configured to receive a removable light seal having left and right vision correction lenses;
and a sensor configured to gather information from the removable light seal,
Stafford teaches a head-mounted housing configured to receive a removable light seal having left and right vision correction lenses (para. 055, lines 1-4);
and a sensor configured to gather information from the removable light seal (para. 0065-0066).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the arty before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the HMD as taught by Ebert with the personal prescription attachment as taught by Stafford for the benefit of a smaller form factor HMD with the inclusion of a user’s prescription lenses (see Stafford para. 0026-0027).
Ebert as modified by Stafford further teaches where the motor is configured to move the optical assembly based on the information gathered by the sensor (steps 602-608; col. 11, lines 10 -58).
Regarding claim 18 Ebert teaches (figs. 1-2B and 5-7) a head-mounted device, except where the sensor comprises an image sensor.
Stafford teaches where the sensor comprises an image sensor (para. 0065-0066).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the arty before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the HMD as taught by Ebert with the personal prescription attachment as taught by Stafford for the benefit of a smaller form factor HMD with the inclusion of a user’s prescription lenses (see Stafford para. 0026-0027).
Regarding claim 19 Ebert teaches (figs. 1-2B and 5-7) a head-mounted device, comprising:
a head-mounted housing (col. 3, line 59 – col. 4, line 3);
an optical assembly in the head-mounted housing that is configured to provide an image to an eye box (col. 13, lines 19-23);
a rail along which the optical assembly moves col. 7, lines 30-46);
a motor configured to move the optical assembly along the rail (col. 6, lines 9-15).
Ebert does not teach where the housing is configured to receive a removable light seal having left and right vision correction lenses and a wireless transceiver configured to gather information from the removable light seal.
Stafford teaches a removable light seal having left and right vision correction lenses (para. 055, lines 1-4) and a wireless transceiver configured to gather information from the removable light seal (para. 0037).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the arty before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the HMD as taught by Ebert with the personal prescription attachment as taught by Stafford for the benefit of a smaller form factor HMD with the inclusion of a user’s prescription lenses (see Stafford para. 0026-0027).
Ebert as modified by Stafford where the motor is configured to move the optical assembly based on the information gathered by the wireless transceiver (steps 602-608; col. 11, lines 10 -58).
Regarding claim 20 Ebert as modified by Stafford teaches (figs. 1-2B and 5-7) a head-mounted device, where the optical assembly has a display and has an optical assembly lens and where the display provides the image to the eye box through the optical assembly lens and through the left vision correction lens (col. 13, lines 19-23).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Further HMD with interpupillary adjustment systems including Tsuyuki et. al. (US 2006/0072206 A1), Yamaga (US 2016/0005231 A1), Petrov (US 2017/0168303 A1), Song et. al. (US 2018/0003919 A1), Yang et. al. (US 2018/0048911 A1), and Chang et. al. (US 2019/0041643 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 a.m. -6 p.m..
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.
/Robert E. Tallman/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872