DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as applied to claims 1-4, 6-9, and 13-17. Applicant argues that the prior art of record (Wu et al US2022/0385881 A1) fails to teach motion sensors or IMU disposed on a camera. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Based on the claim as currently constructed, it is unclear as to what is considered a “first sensor” and the size/dimensions of the “first sensor” itself. There are many parts that may be considered a “first sensor” when giving the term its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). As pertaining to the prior art of Wu, wearable display device 100 is comprised of a frame 102, which is further comprised of temple pieces 108A (right side of frame 102) and 108B (left side of frame). Temple pieces 108A and 108B may be considered a first and second sensor (emphasis added). Therefore cameras 104 and 106 have IMUs 114 and 130 disposed on said first and second sensor respectfully. It is highly suggested to further define what is considered a first and second sensor to thereby differentiate itself from the prior art applied. A suggestion would be a similar recitation as recited in claim 18 as currently constructed, that provides a clear distinction as to where the motion sensor or IMU is disposed at or directly connected to. Based on this reasoning/rationale, the prior art rejection of Wu will remain as pertaining to claims 1-4, 6-9, and 13-17.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 02/12/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as applied to Iyengar et al (US 11,803,058 B1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Han et al (US 2023/0247272 A1).
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)(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.
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wu et al (US 2022/0385881 A1).
As per claim 13, Wu discloses an electronic device (fig. 1, wearable display device 100) comprising:
a first sensor (fig. 1, wearable display device 100, temple piece 108B, first camera 104);
a 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) disposed 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).
As per claim 14, Wu further discloses the electronic device of claim 13, wherein;
the first sensor comprises a first camera (fig. 1, wearable display device 100, first camera 104); and
the second sensor comprises a second camera (fig. 1, wearable display device 100, second camera 106).
As per claim 15, Wu further discloses the electronic device of claim 13, wherein the signal is based on a rotational motion of the first sensor (fig. 1, wearable display device 100, first IMU 114).
As per claim 16, Wu 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 (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 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 (fig. 1, wearable display device 100, first camera 104);
the second sensor is attached to the frame at a second location (fig. 1, wearable display device 100, second camera 106);
the IMU is a first IMU directly attached to the first sensor (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 (fig. 1, wearable display device 100, second camera 106, IMU 130).
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 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyengar et al (US 11,803,058 B1) in view of Wu et al (US 2022/0385881 A1).
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 attached 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, also see response to arguments above regarding motion sensor and camera module being attached).
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.
As per claim 2, the combined teachings of Iyengar in view of Wu, 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 (Wu, fig. 1, wearable display device 100, IMU 114 may be mechanically coupled to a camera having a lens assembly);
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 in view of Wu, 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 (Wu, fig. 1, first and second IMU 114 and 130 may be mechanically coupled to the camera(s), i.e. attached).
As per claim 4, the combined teachings of Iyengar in view of Wu, 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 (Wu, fig. 1, first and second IMU 114 and 130 is mechanically coupled to camera(s) external of the wearable device).
As per claim 6, the combined teachings of Iyengar in view of Wu, 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 in view of Wu, 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 in view of Wu, 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 in view of Wu, 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) and Wu et al (US 2022/0385881 A1) 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 in view of Wu, as a whole, fails to teach the limitations as recited above in claim 5. However, Kang discloses an electronic device 601 which can be a 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 and Wu, 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 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 Han et al (US 2023/0247272 A1).
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, Han discloses a module, wherein a motion sensor may be connected to circuit element 95, which is directly connected to image sensor 810 (i.e. photon detector) (Han, fig. 1, camera module 200, circuit element 95, image sensor 810, para 0303).
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 Han, as a whole, by incorporating the ability to directly attach a motion sensor to a camera module as taught by Han, into the imaging 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 Han, 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 Han, 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights