DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/03/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to pending claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 11, 12, 14-17, 19, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: The aforementioned claims above depend from claim 0. Dependent claims must depend from a previous numbered claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyengar et al (US 11,803,058 B1) and Wu et al (US 2022/0385881 A1), in further view of Zhang et al (US 11,847,259 B1).
As per claim 1, Iyengar discloses a head-mountable device comprising (fig. 9, eyewear device 100):
a display (fig. 9, eyewear device 100, display 180C and 180D);
a housing (fig. 1a and 9, eyewear device 100, frame 105);
a camera module (fig. 1A and 9, light cameras 114A and 114B) comprising:
a lens assembly (fig. 1A and 9, light cameras 114A and 114B, col. 5 lines 63-66);
an optical sensor (fig. 2A, eyewear device 100, infrared emitter 115); and
a substrate (fig. 1B, eyewear device 100, flexible printed circuit board (PCB) 140), and
a processor configured to generate a signal based on motion (fig. 9, eyewear device 100, processor 930, col. 14 lines 49-52).
Iyengar fails to teach a motion sensor to the camera module and configured to determine a motion of the camera module, However, Wu discloses a wearable display device 100, comprising a first IMU 114 and a second IMU 130 which is mechanically and electrically coupled to a first camera and a second camera for determining motion/movement of the camera(s) (Wu, fig. 1, wearable display device 100, first and second IMU 114 and 130, see associated written description, also see para 0021).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Iyengar in view of Wu, as a whole, by incorporating the IMU’s sensor as taught by Wu, into the eyewear device as taught by Iyengar, because doing so would provide a more efficient way of detecting motion/movement of the cameras, thus enhancing/correcting image data received.
The combined teachings of Iyengar in view of Wu, as a whole, fails to teach a motion sensor mounted to the camera module. However, Zhang discloses smartglasses frame 110 having a camera 116, wherein an inertial measurement unit (IMU) 202 is attached/mounted to camera 116 (Zhang, fig. 2A, smartglasses frame 110, camera 116, IMU 202, see col. 5 lines 40-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Iyengar and Wu, in further view of Zhang as a whole, by incorporating the ability to mount a motion sensor on a camera as taught by Zhang, into the eyewear device as taught by Iyengar and Wu, because doing so would provide a more efficient way of determining motion of a camera, thus enhancing the imaging device as a whole.
As per claim 2, the combined teachings of Iyengar and Wu, in further view of Zhang, as a whole, further discloses the head-mountable device of claim 1, wherein:
the camera module is a first camera module and the head-mountable device comprises a second camera module (Iyengar, fig. 1A and 9, light cameras 114A-B);
the motion sensor is a first motion sensor configured to transmit first motion data to the processor (Wu, fig. 1, wearable display device 100, first IMU 114);
the first motion sensor is directly attached to at least one of the lens assembly, the optical sensor, or the substrate (Zhang, fig. 2A, IMU 202 is directly attached to camera 216);
the second camera module comprises a second motion sensor configured to transmit second motion data to the processor (Iyengar, fig. 1A and 9, light cameras 114A-B and Wu, fig. 1, second IMU 130); and
the processor is configured to compare the first motion data and the second motion data (Wu, fig. 1, wearable display device 100, first and second IMU 114 and 130 data may be compared to align, para 0021).
As per claim 3, the combined teachings of Iyengar and Wu, in further view of Zhang, as a whole, further discloses the head-mountable device of claim 1, wherein:
the lens assembly comprises a lens barrel that houses a lens (Iyengar, fig. 1B, light cameras 114A and 114B, has a lens barrel that houses a lens); and
the motion sensor is attached to the lens barrel (Zhang, fig. 2A, IMU 202 is directly attached to camera 216).
As per claim 4, the combined teachings of Iyengar and Wu, in further view of Zhang, as a whole, further discloses the head-mountable device of claim 1, wherein the motion sensor at least partially defines an exterior of the camera module (Zhang, fig. 2A, IMU 202 is directly attached to camera 216).
As per claim 6, the combined teachings of Iyengar and Wu, in further view of Zhang, as a whole, further discloses the head-mountable device of claim 1, wherein the motion sensor is disposed within a cavity defined by the camera module (Iyengar, fig. 1b, IMU which is a part of head movement tracker 109, is disposed in a cavity, defined by visible light cameras 114A-B).
As per claim 7, the combined teachings of Iyengar and Wu, in further view of Zhang, as a whole, further discloses the head-mountable device of claim 1, wherein the motion sensor is configured to detect a movement of the camera module relative to the housing (Wu, fig. 1, first and second IMU 114 and 130 may be positioned to detect a movement relative to the camera(s), para 0021).
As per claim 8, the combined teachings of Iyengar and Wu, in further view of Zhang, as a whole, further discloses the head-mountable device of claim 1, wherein, the signal generated by the processor causes a change in an operating protocol of the head-mountable device (Wu, fig. 1, first and second IMU 114 and 130 may send signal to processor to adjust a displayed image based on the motion, para 0021).
As per claim 9, the combined teachings of Iyengar and Wu, in further view of Zhang, as a whole, further discloses the head-mountable device of claim 1, wherein the motion sensor comprises at least one of a gyroscope, an accelerometer, or a magnetometer (Wu, accelerometer, para 0045).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyengar et al (US 11,803,058 B1), Wu et al (US 2022/0385881 A1), and Zhang et al (US 11,847,259 B1), in further view of Kang et al (US 2020/0358956 A1).
As per claim 5, the head-mountable device of claim 1, wherein the motion sensor is encapsulated in the camera module.
Iyengar and Wu, in further view of Zhang, as a whole, fails to teach the limitations as recited above in claim 5. However, Kang discloses an electronic device 601 which can be an HMD, wherein the motion sensor is encapsulated in the first camera module 791 (Kang, fig. 7, electronic device 701, first camera module 791, motion sensor 794).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Iyengar, Wu and Zhang, in further view of Kang, as a whole, by incorporating the motion sensor within the camera module, as taught by Kang, into the eyewear device as taught by Iyengar and Wu, because doing so would provide a more efficient way of detecting movement of the camera module, thus being able to efficiently capture image data.
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US 2022/0385881 A1) in view of Zhang et al (US 11,847,259 B1).
As per claim 13, Wu discloses an electronic device (fig. 1, wearable display device 100) comprising:
a frame;
a first sensor coupled to the frame (fig. 1, wearable display device 100, temple piece 108B, first camera 104);
a second sensor coupled to the frame, the second sensor configured to be operationally aligned with the first sensor (fig. 1, wearable display device 100, temple piece 108A, second camera 106);
an inertial measurement unit (IMU) on the first sensor and configured to generate a signal based on motion of the first sensor (fig. 1, wearable display device 100, first IMU 114, temple pieces 108A and 108B are considered a first and second sensor, therefore cameras 104 and 106 have IMUs 114 and 130 disposed on said first and second sensor respectfully); and
a processor configured to receive the signal and detect a misalignment between the first sensor and the second sensor based on the signal (fig. 2, wearable display device 200, controller 242, can detect misalignment between first and second camera 104 and 106, should be known fig. 1 is an example of fig. 2, para 0021).
Wu fails to teach a IMU mounted on the first sensor/camera. However, Zhang discloses smartglasses frame 110 having a camera 116, wherein an inertial measurement unit (IMU) 202 is attached/mounted to camera 116 (Zhang, fig. 2A, smartglasses frame 110, camera 116, IMU 202, see col. 5 lines 40-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings Wu in view of Zhang as a whole, by incorporating the ability to mount a motion sensor on a camera as taught by Zhang, into the eyewear device as taught by Wu, because doing so would provide a more efficient way of determining motion of a camera, thus enhancing the imaging device as a whole.
As per claim 14, Wu in view of Zhang, as a whole, further discloses the electronic device of claim 13, wherein;
the first sensor comprises a first camera (Wu, fig. 1, wearable display device 100, first camera 104); and
the second sensor comprises a second camera (Wu, fig. 1, wearable display device 100, second camera 106).
As per claim 15, Wu in view of Zhang, as a whole, further discloses the electronic device of claim 13, wherein the signal is based on a rotational motion of the first sensor (Wu, fig. 1, wearable display device 100, first IMU 114).
As per claim 16, Wu in view of Zhang, as a whole, further discloses the electronic device of claim 13, wherein the IMU is configured to detect a motion of the electronic device and to detect a motion of the first sensor (Wu, fig. 1, wearable display device 100, first camera 104, IMU 114 may detect motion of the wearable device and the first camera 104, para 0021).
As per claim 17, Wu in view of Zhang, as a whole, further discloses the electronic device of claim 13, wherein:
the first sensor is attached to a frame of the electronic device at a first location (Wu, fig. 1, wearable display device 100, first camera 104);
the second sensor is attached to the frame at a second location (Wu, fig. 1, wearable display device 100, second camera 106);
the IMU is a first IMU directly attached to the first sensor (Wu, fig. 1, wearable display device 100, first camera 104, IMU 114); and
the second sensor comprises a second IMU directly attached to the second sensor (Wu, fig. 1, wearable display device 100, second camera 106, IMU 130).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyengar et al (US 11,803,058 B1) in view of Zhang et al (US 11,847,259 B1).
As per claim 18, Iyengar discloses a camera module (fig. 1A, visible light cameras 114A-B) comprising:
a lens barrel (fig. 1B, visible light cameras 114A-B, lens barrel extends upwardly);
a photon detector (fig. 1A, visible light cameras 114A-B, image sensor, col. 3 lines 4-11);
a substrate (fig. 1B, flexible printed circuit board (PCB) 140); and
Iyengar fails to teach an inertial measurement unit directly connected to at least one of the lens barrel or the photon detector. However, Zhang discloses smartglasses frame 110 having a camera 116, wherein an inertial measurement unit (IMU) 202 is directly attached/mounted to camera 116 (Zhang, fig. 2A, smartglasses frame 110, camera 116, IMU 202, see col. 5 lines 40-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Iyengar in view of Zhang, as a whole, by incorporating the ability to directly attach a motion sensor to a camera as taught by Zhang, onto the eyewear device as taught by Iyengar, because doing so would provide a more efficient way of tracking motion of the imaging device, thus enhancing the imaging capturing functionality.
As per claim 19, Iyengar in view of Zhang, as a whole, further discloses the camera module of claim 18, wherein the inertial measurement unit comprises at least one of a gyroscope, an accelerometer, or a magnetometer (Iyengar, col. 4 lines 63-66).
As per claim 20, Iyengar in view of Zhang, as a whole, further discloses further discloses the camera module of claim 18, wherein the inertial measurement unit is disposed in a recess defined by the camera module (Iyengar, fig. 1b, IMU which is a part of head movement tracker 109, is disposed in a recess, defined by visible light cameras 114A-B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 10, none of the prior art cited alone or in combination provides the motivation to teach the following claimed limitations, with emphasis that it is each claim, taken as a whole, including the interrelationships and interconnections between various claimed elements, make them allowable over the prior art of record, the head-mountable device of claim 1, wherein: the motion sensor is configured to receive motion data; the processor is configured to compare the received motion data to expected motion data; and if the received motion data varies from the expected motion data above a predetermined threshold, the processor adjusts an operating parameter of the head-mountable device.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, claims depend from claim 10 and are allowable for the same reasons stated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H MOREHEAD III whose telephone number is (571)270-3845. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 0930-1800 EST.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at (571) 272-7406. 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.
/JOHN H MOREHEAD III/Examiner, Art Unit 2639
/TWYLER L HASKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639
