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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Regarding Applicant’s remarks as they pertain to claims 7 and 15, while the gaze tracker(s) no longer invokes USC 112(f) for providing the structure of light source(s) and camera(s), the issue remains to the lack of algorithm for the camera to determine skin tautness (MPEP 2161.01.I - When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing). While Applicant refers to paragraph 12, such paragraph merely recites images are captured, however there’s no algorithm (series of steps) how such images are analyzed to determine a skin tautness. Thus Applicant’s specification fail to contain the necessary/sufficient algorithm for how the camera/sensor determines skin tautness.
Regarding Applicant’s remarks as they pertain to claims 1, 9, 17 and the gaze tracker camera/sensor configured to measure an eye relief/interpupillary distance (IPD), the issue remains. While the gaze tracker(s) no longer invoke USC 112(f), the corresponding algorithm of how the camera/sensor measures the eye relief/IPD does not appear to be present in paragraph 12 as Applicant points out. Paragraph 12 merely states the camera is used to determine such things, but such use isn’t an algorithm (series of steps). (MPEP 2161.01.I - When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing).
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have resolved the various USC 112(b) issue by removing the USC 112(f) interpretations. Any additional USC 112(b) rejections will be presented below.
Regarding Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 17, the inclusion of the motor rotating the shaft overcomes the art of Lin. Applicant’s remarks and amendments do not resolve the positioning based on the IPD and eye relief since claim 1 continues to recite “based on the measured eye relief…and the measured interpupillary distance”. Lin’s motor positions the optical assembly based on both these measured values, albeit indirectly from the eye relief(s). Claim 17 has similar issues where the optical assembly is adjusted based on the eye relief. Lin’s adjustment is “based on” the eye relief measurement, albeit indirectly, as shown in Figures 3, 7.
Regarding Applicant’s remarks/amendments as they pertain to claim 9, the issues remain. Unlike claim 1 and 17, there is no shaft, and Lin moves the optical assemblies “based on” the eye relief measurement as outlined in Figures 3, 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claims 1, 9, 17 the claims recite a gaze tracker(s) configured to measure an interpupillary distance to measure an eye relief which are computer implemented functions, however the specification fails to disclose the necessary/sufficient algorithm to measure the IPD and eye relief. MPEP 2161.01.I - When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing…If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made.
Claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-20 are rejected as dependent upon claims 1, 9, 17.
As to claims 7, 15, the claims recite the gaze tracker is configured to measure skin tautness which is a computer implemented algorithm, however the specification fails to disclose the necessary/sufficient algorithm to measure the skin tautness. MPEP 2161.01.I - When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing…If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US 2021/0037232 - Lin; of record).
As to claim 9, Lin teaches a head mounted device (Lin Fig. 1) comprising
a head mounted housing (Lin Fig. 1 - 30);
left and right optical assemblies in the head-mounted housing that are separated by a separation distance and that are configured to provide respective left and right images to left and right eye boxes (Lin Fig. 1 - 110a, 120a, 110b, 120b; para. [0020]);
a left gaze tracker comprising a first light source and a second camera in the left optical assembly (Lin Fig. 1 - 140a, 160; para. [0022]-[0024]; Figs. 5A-C - 160a, 140a);
a right gaze tracker comprising a second light source and a second camera in the right optical assembly (Lin Fig. 1 - 140b; 160; para. [0022]-[0024]; Figs. 5A-C - 160a, 140a), wherein the left and right gaze trackers are configured to measure an interpupillary distance and an eye relief (Lin Fig. 2 - S202, S203, S206);
and left and right motors coupled to the left and right optical assemblies (Lin Fig. 1 - 20; para. [0024]) configured to respectively position the left and right optical assemblies (Lin Figs. 3A,B), wherein the left and right motors are configured to adjust the separation distance to be different than the measured IPD distance based on the measured eye relief (Lin Figs. 3A,B; Fig. 6 - P2a, P2b; para. [0038], [0039] - as discussed, optical assemblies (110a,b) can be move to any necessary separation distance including not equal to the IPD).
As to claim 10, Lin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Lin further teaches the left and right motors are configured to adjust the separation distance to be greater than the measured IPD based on the measured eye relief exceeding a predetermined eye relief threshold (Lin Fig. 4; para. [0031]; Fig. 6; para. [0036]).
As to claim 11, Lin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 10, and Lin further teaches the left and right motors are configured to adjust the separation distance to be greater than the measured IPD (Lin Figs. 3A,B; Fig. 6; para. [0038], [0039]).
As to claim 12, Lin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 11, and Lin further teaches the left and right motors are configured to adjust the separation distance to be greater than the measured IPD based on the measured IPD being below a predetermined IPD threshold (Lin Figs. 3A,B; Fig. 6; para. [0038], [0039]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 6, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (cited above) in view of Oikawa et al. (US 2023/0066962 - Oikawa).
As to claim 1, Lin teaches a head mounted device (Lin Fig. 1) comprising a head mounted housing (Lin Fig. 1 - 30);
a shaft in the housing (Lin Fig. 1 - 20);
an optical assembly in the head mounted housing that is configured to provide an image to an eye box (Lin Fig. 1 - 10a, 120a; para. [0020]), wherein the optical assembly is coupled to the shaft (Lin Fig. 1 - 20, 110a, 110b);
a gaze tracker comprising a light source and a camera (Lin Fig. 1 - 140a, 160; para. [0022]-[0024]; Figs. 5A-C - 160a, 140a), wherein the camera is configured to measure an interpupillary distance and an eye relief (Lin Fig. 2 - S201, S202, S203, S206);
a motor (Lin Fig. 1 - 20; para. [0024]) configured to position the optical assembly based on the measured eye relief from the gaze tracker and the measured interpupillary distance from the gaze tracker (Lin Fig. 2 - S202, S203, S206, S207).
Lin doesn’t specify the shaft is a rotating shaft driven by the motor. In the same field of endeavor Oikawa teaches HMD having motors and rotating shafts (Oikawa Fig. 2A - 21L, 22L, 22R, 21R; para. [0032], [0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide rotating shaft driving since, as taught by Oikawa, such mechanisms are well known in the art for the purpose of adjusting HMD IPD (Oikawa Fig. 2A - 21L, 22L, 22R, 21R; para. [0032], [0033]).
As to claim 2, Lin in view of Oikawa teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Lin further teaches the motor is configured to move the optical assembly outward from a central portion of the head-mounted housing in response to determining that the measured eye relief is more than a predetermined threshold amount (Lin Fig. 3B; para. [0038]-[0039]).
As to claim 3, Lin in view of Oikawa teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Lin further teaches the motor is configured to adjust the position of the optical assembly outwards by a first amount in response to the measured eye relief being more than a predetermined threshold amount and the measured interpupillary distance having a first value (Lin Fig. 2; Fig. 3A; Fig. 4; para. [0031], [0037]-[0039]; Fig. 7) and is configured to move the optical assembly outwards by a second amount that is more than the first amount in response to the measured eye relief being more than the predetermine threshold amount and the measured interpupillary distance having a second value that is less than the first value (Lin Fig. 2; Fig. 3B; Fig. 4; para. [0031], [0037]-[0039]; Fig. 7).
As to claim 6, Lin in view of Oikawa teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Lin further teaches the motor is configured to move the optical assembly to provide an alert (Lin Fig. 2 - S207; Figs. 3A,B).
As to claim 17, Lin teaches a head mounted device (Lin fig. 1 - 100) comprising
a shaft (Lin Fig. 1 - 20)
an optical assembly coupled to the shaft (Lin Fig. 1 - 110a, 120a, 130a, 20; [0020]) having a lens (Lin Fig. 1 - 130a; para. [0020]), a display configured to display an image to an eye box through the lens (Lin Fig. 1 - 120a; para. [0020]), and a gaze tracker comprising a light source and a camera (Lin Fig. 1 - 140a, 160; para. [0022]-[0024]; Figs. 5A-C - 160a, 140a) configured to make an interpupillary distance measurement and an eye relief measurement through the lens (Lin Fig. 2 - S202-S307; para. [0031], [0037]-[0038]); and
a motor configured to adjust a position of the optical assembly based on the eye relief measurement (Lin Fig. 1 - 20; para. [0024]).
Lin doesn’t specify the shaft is a rotating shaft driven by the motor. In the same field of endeavor Oikawa teaches HMD having motors and rotating shafts (Oikawa Fig. 2A - 21L, 22L, 22R, 21R; para. [0032], [0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide rotating shaft driving since, as taught by Oikawa, such mechanisms are well known in the art for the purpose of adjusting HMD IPD (Oikawa Fig. 2A - 21L, 22L, 22R, 21R; para. [0032], [0033]).
As to claim 18, Lin in view of Oikawa teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 17, and Lin further teaches a head-mounted housing and a guide rail in the head-mounted housing along which the optical assembly slides (Lin Fig. 1 - 20; para. [0024]), wherein the motor is configured to adjust the position of the optical assembly by moving the optical assembly along the rail based on the eye relief measurement (Lin Fig. 1 - 20; para. [0024]; Fig. 2 - S202, S203, S207).
As to claim 19, Lin in view of Oikawa teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 18, and Lin further teaches the motor is configured to adjust the position of the optical assembly based on the IPD (Lin Fig. 2 - S206, S207).
As to claim 20, Lin in view of Oikawa teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 19, and Lin further teaches the motor is configured to adjust the position of the optical assembly outwardly away from a center portion of the head-mounted housing based on the IPD measurement and the eye relief measurement (Lin Fig. 3B).
Claim 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin and Oikawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yi et al. (US 2018/0157043 - Yi; of record).
As to claim 4, Lin in view of Oikawa teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and while Lin teaches the motor is configured to position the optical assembly based on information (Lin Figs. 1-3), Lin doesn’t specify a magnetic vision correction lens sensor/presence sensor.
In the same field of endeavor Yi teaches HMD having a magnetic vision correction lens sensor (Yi Fig. 1 - 140; Fig. 2B - 231, 104; Fig. 2C - 231; para. [0128]; Fig. 5A; para. [0157]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide a magnetic correction lens sensor since, as taught by Yi, such sensors allow for sensing lens inserts and controlling the HMD based on the inserted lens (Yi Fig. 1 - 140; Fig. 2B - 231, 104; Fig. 2C - 231; para. [0128]; Fig. 5A; para. [0157]).
As to claim 5, Lin in view of Oikawa and Yi teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 4, and Lin teaches the motor is configured to position the optical assembly based on information (Lin Figs. 1-3) and Yi teaches the optical assembly is configured to receive the removable correction lens with a magnet the produces a magnetic field (Yi Figs. 2B,C - 231, 104; para. [0128]) and control an optical assembly of the HMD based on the magnetic sensor information (Yi Fig. 5A - S501, 504, 505).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Yi et al. (US 2018/0157043 - Yi; of record).
As to claim 13, Lin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and while Lin teaches the motor is configured to position the optical assembly based on information (Lin Figs. 1-3), Lin doesn’t specify a vision correction lens sensor/presence sensor.
In the same field of endeavor Yi teaches HMD having a magnetic vision correction lens sensor (Yi Fig. 1 - 140; Fig. 2B - 231, 104; Fig. 2C - 231; para. [0128]; Fig. 5A; para. [0157]) and control an optical assembly of the HMD based on the magnetic sensor information (Yi Fig. 5A - S501, 504, 505). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide a magnetic correction lens sensor since, as taught by Yi, such sensors allow for sensing lens inserts and controlling the HMD based on the inserted lens (Yi Fig. 1 - 140; Fig. 2B - 231, 104; Fig. 2C - 231; para. [0128]; Fig. 5A; para. [0157]).
As to claim 14, Lin in view of Yi teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claims 13, and Yi further teaches the left and right optical assemblies are configured to receive left and right vision correction lenses, respectively (Yi Figs. 2A,B), and wherein the vision correction lens presence sensor comprises a magnetic sensor configured to measure a magnetic field from the left or right vision correction lens (Yi Figs. 2B, C - 231, 104; para. [0128]).
Claims 7-8 are are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin and Oikawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cheng (US 2022/0382062; of record).
As to claim 7, Lin in view of Oikawa teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and while Lin teaches gaze tracking (Lin Fig. 2 - S201, S202, S203) but doesn’t specify measuring skin tautness. In the same field of endeavor Cheng teaches head mounted devices measuring skin tautness (Cheng Fig. 7 - 702; Fig. 8 - 804; para. [0014], [0047]-[0049]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to measure skin tautness since, as taught by Cheng, such measurements allow for determining a comfortable fit of the HMD (Cheng para. [0014], [0047]-[0049]).
As to claim 8, Lin in view of Oikawa and Cheng teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7, and Cheng further teaches the motor is further configured to adjust the position of the optical assembly based on the measured skin tautness (Cheng para. [0014], [0049]).
Claim 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Cheng (US 2022/0382062; of record).
As to claim 15, Lin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and while Lin teaches gaze tracking (Lin Fig. 2 - S201, S202, S203) but doesn’t specify measuring skin tautness. In the same field of endeavor Cheng teaches head mounted devices measuring skin tautness (Cheng Fig. 7 - 702; Fig. 8 - 804; para. [0014], [0047]-[0049]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to measure skin tautness since, as taught by Cheng, such measurements allow for determining a comfortable fit of the HMD (Cheng para. [0014], [0047]-[0049]).
As to claim 16, Lin in view of Cheng teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 15, and Cheng further teaches the motor is further configured to adjust the position of the optical assembly based on the measured skin tautness (Cheng para. [0014], [0049]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Oikawa et al. (US 12,001,020); Lindberg et al. (US 12,449,633; 2023/0418022); Yeh et al. (US 11,054,659; 2021/0141231) are cited as additional examples of HMDs with IPD and eye relief adjustment.
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 ZACHARY W WILKES whose telephone number is (571)270-7540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific).
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.
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 January 23, 2026