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
The amendment filed on 6-01-26 has been entered and fully considered by the examiner.
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 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (2022/0137703) in view of Aimone et al. (US 2018/0348863).
Regarding claim 9, Miller (Fig. 1, 11, and 15) discloses an apparatus comprising:
a display (43, 44);
a facial interface (67) configured to engage a face of the user (“a portion of the frame that contacts the skin of the user, for example on the inner surface 67” discussed in [0036]);
a biometric sensor (72, providing “biometric contextual data” as discussed in [0035]) attached to the facial interface (“sensors 72 can each be mounted on or provided within the inner surface 67” discussed in [0035]);
a power source (62);
a processor (as part of 61, see “61 can include a central processing unit such as one or more micro processors” discussed in [0034]); and
a biased removable electromechanical connection (298, corresponding to 1502 which “enables rapid connection and disconnection” and includes “data ports” as discussed in [0123], which is biased using a spring, see a “spring pushes pins” discussed in [0123]) between the biometric sensor and each of the power source and the processor (as seen in Fig. 1, the sensor is located in the “front piece” of the glasses, while the power source 62 is in the arm on the right side, and the processor in 61 is in the arm on the left side, while Fig. 11 more explicitly shows computer 301 in the arm 51 being disconnected from the front piece 32, which includes the sensor), the removable electromechanical connection is a shared power and data connection (“send and receive data to/from a data port” discussed in [0201] and “receives and sends power over the data ports” discussed in [0202]) positioned adjacent to a temple region of a head (as seen in Fig. 11, the connection is located on the outside periphery of the lens of the glasses, which corresponds to the temple region of the user’s head when the device is worn, more explicitly called a “temple” 47 in [0083]).
However, Miller fails to teach or suggest wherein the facial interface is “removably coupled to the display.”
Aimone (Fig. 1 and 2) discloses an apparatus comprising:
a display (“display” discussed in [0166]);
a facial interface (120) removably coupled to the display (“face pad 120 is detachably attached to wearable computing device 100” discussed in [0190]) and configured to engage a face of a user (“face pad 120 includes a foam pad 121” and “the foam pad 121 conforms to the user's face” discussed in [0188]);
a biometric sensor (130) attached to the facial interface (“face pad 120 includes bio-signal sensors disposed thereon” discussed in [0191]); and
a processor (“processor” discussed in [0228]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller so the facial interface is removably coupled to the display as taught by Aimone because this allows for easier cleaning or replacement when damaged.
Regarding claim 10, Miller and Aimone disclose an HMD as discussed above, and Miller further discloses wherein the removable electromechanical connection comprises a communication interface between the processor and the biometric sensor (“connections that permit bidirectional transmission of data between the glasses front piece and the glasses arm” discussed in [0123], while Fig. 1 shows that the front piece includes the sensor 72, and the left arm includes the processor 61).
Regarding claim 11, Miller and Aimone disclose an HMD as discussed above, and Miller further discloses wherein the removable electromechanical connection comprises a power interface between the power source and the biometric sensor (“hardware accessory port(s) (2632) provide a bidirectional serial data bus as well as voltage-regulated power lines” discussed in [0199], “send power to every circuit that needs power” discussed in [0206]).
Regarding claim 12, Miller and Aimone disclose an HMD as discussed above, and Miller further discloses wherein the removable electromechanical connection comprises a communication interface and a power interface (1502 includes a “data port” as discussed in [0123], with “send and receive data to/from a data port” discussed in [0201] and “receives and sends power over the data ports” discussed in [0202]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller and Aimone as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0360326).
Regarding claim 13, Miller and Aimone disclose an apparatus as discussed above, however fail to teach or suggest wherein the electromechanical connection comprises a pogo-pin connection.
Lee (Fig. 3) discloses an apparatus wherein an electromechanical connection comprises a pogo-pin connection (“the charging terminals 910 and 920, and the sensing terminals 930 and 940 may be configured as pogo pins” as discussed in [0145]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller and Aimone so the electromechanical connection comprises a pogo-pin connection as taught by Lee because Miller, Aimone, and Lee are each directed to wearable devices, and pogo pins allow for easy mechanical and electrical contact even when frequently connecting or disconnecting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 8, and 15-21 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, Miller and Bohn disclose a head mountable display as discussed in the previous office action, however the claim has been amended and now further includes the limitation “a connector disposed between a power interface connector and the biometric sensor.”
Miller discloses a connector (the “data ports” in the removable connector 1502, similar to 298 shown in Fig. 11) disposed between a power interface connector and a biometric sensor (as seen in Fig. 11, the connector in 298 is in between the “front piece” and the “arm” of the glasses, and so the connector will be between the sensor 72 in the front piece and the power interface, eg. battery 61, seen in the arm in Fig. 1).
However, Miller fails to teach or suggest details of the inductive charging coil in the power interface connector.
Bohn was presented to teach the power interface connector (502) comprising an inductive charging coil disposed within a perimeter of the facial interface (eg. “embedded within a bezel 514 around the eye piece 504” as discussed in [0033]).
However, since Miller only teaches the connector is between a front piece and arm of the glasses (and that the battery is within an arm of the glasses), it is not combinable with the “wireless charging interface disposed within the perimeter of the facial interface” taught by Bohn.
Therefore, each of the currently cited references of record fails to teach or suggest both “the power interface connector comprising an inductive charging coil disposed within a perimeter of the facial interface” and “a connector disposed between a power interface connector and the biometric sensor” when combined with each of the other claim limitations.
Claims 2-6, 8, and 21 are dependent upon claim 1, and so are allowable for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claims 15-20 have not been amended, and so are allowable for the same reasons as discussed in the previous office action.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6-1-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 9, the applicant argues that Miller teaches a power source (62) and processor (61) on different arms of the glasses, and so fails to teach or suggest the “removable electromechanical connection is a shared power and data connection.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, the removable electromechanical connection (called a “data port”) is used to both “send and receive data” (discussed in [0201]) and “receives and sends power” (discussed in [0202]). Additionally, providing data and power through the same connection allows for intelligent power control and “allows the processing unit(s) to regulate the power supply to all components (2626) of the system individually or in combination” (discussed in [0206]).
Further, although the applicant notes that the battery is not in the same arm as the processor, Miller discloses that the power from the battery is conditioned by other components and not directly sent to the sensors (eg. “power then flows into a battery control & charging circuit (2630) or a plurality of battery control& charging circuits (2630) (2628)” as discussed in [0202] and as seen in Fig. 26, see also the “DC regulators” in [0205], and “send power to every circuit that needs power” discussed in [0206]), and so the specific location of the battery would not teach away from a shared power and data connection.
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 JONATHAN M BLANCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-5890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9-5.
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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached at 5712727772. 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.
/JONATHAN M BLANCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623
Prosecution Insights