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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 8/18/2026 are acknowledged and accepted. Claims 1-2, 4-7, 11, and 20 are amended, Claim 10 is canceled, Claim 21 is added, and Claims 1-9 and 11-21 remain pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 01/29/2024 are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claims 20 -21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to Claim 20, “the optical module” should read “the optical assembly”.
Appropriate correction is required.
With respect to Claim 21, “the optical module” should read “the optical assembly”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “the position change of the optical module is determined based on detecting a drop event” in claim 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to Claim 21, the claim is rendered unclear due to the phrase “wherein the position change of the optical module is determined based on detecting a drop event” it is not clear if a “drop event” refers to the head-mounted device being dropped by a user, an interruption in the functionality of the device, a failure of structure components, or some other occurrence. For the purpose of examination, “a drop event” will be interpreted as “a position change of the optical module”.
Claim limitation “the position change of the optical module is determined based on detecting a drop event” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure which is utilized to detect a drop event. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim 1-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US2013050833A1, of record in the IDS dated 1/29/2024) in view of Samec (US 20160270656 A1).
With respect to Claim 1, Lewis discloses a head-mounted device (Fig. 1—element 2, display device; [0055]), comprising:
a head-mounted support (Fig. 6a-- element 115, frame; [0057]);
optical assemblies device (Fig. 6a-- element 14, display optical system; [0111]) each of which has a lens (Fig. 6a-- element 118, lens; [0111]) through which an image is visible ([0112]: a virtual image is visible on element 118) from an associated eye box (Fig. 6a-- the space behind the lenses which accommodates the eyes), a sensor (Fig. 6a-- element 134, sensor; [0113]) configured to measure eye characteristics ([0113]: 134 is a visible light camera that provides image data of the user’s pupil) in the associated eye box (Fig. 6a-- the space behind the lenses which accommodates the eyes), and a display (Fig. 6a-- element 120, microdisplay unit; [0099]) configured to display the image for the associated eye box ([0118]: element 134 determines if the pupil is unaligned with the optical axis and element 14 is moved to realign the pupils with the optical axis); and discloses control circuitry (Fig. 6a—element 136, control circuitry; [0057]) configured to determine an optical assembly misalignment by comparing a current alignment of a given optical assembly of the optical assemblies based on eye characteristics ([0118]: element 134 determines if the pupil is unaligned with the optical axis and element 14 is moved to realign the pupils with the optical axis) currently measured by the sensor (Fig. 6a-- element 134, sensor; [0113]) of the given optical assembly to an initial alignment of the given optical assembly based on eye characteristics previously measured by the sensor (Fig. 6a-- element 134, sensor; [0113]) of the given optical assembly ([0003]: the device may store inter-pupillary distance data and determine position adjustment needed to align the display), and based on the determined optical assembly misalignment ([0118]: element 134 determines if the pupil is unaligned with the optical axis and element 14 is moved to adjust the position of the image in order to realign the image and the pupils with the optical axis), adjusts the image ([0108]: element 136 sends drive signals to element 135).
However, Lewis does not explicitly disclose wherein the head-mounted device, based on optical assembly misalignment, applies image warping to image data provided to the display, and
provides the image data, with the image warping applied, to the display to display the image.
Lewis and Samec are related as pertaining to the field of the head-mounted devices. Samec discloses wherein a head-mounted device (Fig. 15—element 1400, wearable augmented reality device [1695]), based on optical assembly misalignment, applies image warping to image data ([0415] and [1695]: software is used to provide the appropriate optical correction to adjust projected images based on eye misalignment) provided to the display (Fig. 14—element 1402, display platform; [1695]),
and provides the image data, with the image warping applied ([1695]: software is used to provide the appropriate optical correction to adjust projected images), to the display (Fig. 14—element 1402, display platform; [1695]) to display the image (Fig. 14—element 1420, eye chart; [1695].
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 head-mounted device of Lewis with the image data warping of Samec in order to create a device which may display corrected images to compensate for any ocular anomalies (Samec, [1685]).
With respect to Claim 2, Lewis and Samec disclose the head-mounted device (Fig. 1—element 2, display device; [0055]) defined in claim 1 and Lewis further discloses wherein the sensor (Fig. 6a-- element 134, sensor; [0113]) of each of the optical assemblies (Fig. 6a-- element 14r and 14l, display optical system; [0111]) comprises an image sensor (Fig. 6a-- element 134, sensor; [0113]) configured to capture eye images ([0113]: 134 is a visible light camera that provides image data of the user’s pupil), wherein the measured eye characteristics ([0113]: 134 is a visible light camera that provides image data of the user’s pupil) are obtained from the captured eye images ([0118]: data captured by the 134 indicates the pupil position), and wherein the image is adjusted based on the eye characteristics ([0113]: 134 is a visible light camera that provides image data of the user’s pupil) from the eye images captured ([0118]: element 134 determines if the pupil is aligned with the optical axis and element 14 is moved to realign the pupils with the optical axis) by the image sensor (Fig. 6a-- element 134, sensor; [0113]) of the given optical assembly (Fig. 6a-- element 14r and 14l, display optical system; [0111]).
However, Lewis does not explicitly disclose wherein the image warping to the image data is applied based on the eye characteristics.
Lewis and Samec are related as pertaining to the field of the head-mounted devices. Samec discloses wherein the image warping to the image data ([1695]: software is used to provide the appropriate optical correction to adjust projected images) is applied based on the eye characteristics ([1695]: software may be used to alter the image to account for anomalies in the user’s eyes).
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 head-mounted device of Lewis with the image data warping of Samec in order to create a device which may display corrected images to compensate for any ocular anomalies (Samec, [1685]).
With respect to Claim 3, Lewis and Samec disclose the head-mounted device (Fig. 1—element 2, display device; [0055]) defined in claim 1 and Lewis further discloses wherein the sensor (Fig. 6a-- element 134, sensor; [0113]) of each of the optical assemblies (Fig. 6a-- element 14r and 14l, display optical system; [0111]) comprises an image sensor (Fig. 6a-- element 134, sensor; [0113]) configured to capture eye images ([0113]: 134 is a visible light camera that provides image data of the user’s pupil) and wherein the measured eye characteristics are obtained from the captured eye images ([0113]: 134 is a visible light camera that provides image data of the user’s pupil) and include eye opening angle ([0211]: the position of an eyelid may be used for gaze tracking purposes) and cornea diameter ([0083]: the cornea center is determined as a part of gaze tracking).
With respect to Claim 4, Lewis and Samec disclose the head-mounted device (Fig. 1—element 2, display device; [0055]) defined in claim 1 and Lewis further discloses wherein the sensor (Fig. 6a-- element 134, sensor; [0113]) of each of the optical assemblies (Fig. 6a-- element 14r and 14l, display optical system; [0111]) comprises an image sensor (Fig. 6a-- element 134, sensor; [0113]) configured to measure changes in alignment of the optical assemblies device (Fig. 6a-- element 14, display optical system; [0111]) by comparing eye information gathered when the optical assemblies device (Fig. 6a-- element 14, display optical system; [0111]) are aligned correctly to eye information gathered when the optical assemblies device (Fig. 6a-- element 14, display optical system; [0111]) are misaligned ([0003]: the device may store inter-pupillary distance data and determine position adjustment needed to align the display).
With respect to Claim 5, Lewis and Samec disclose the head-mounted device (Fig. 1—element 2, display device; [0055]) defined in claim 4 and Lewis further discloses wherein the image is adjusted to compensate for a change in alignment ([0099]-[0101]: element 120 includes a variable focus adjuster to adjust the focal length of the image to align the display along the optical path) of the given optical assembly (Fig. 6a-- element 14r and 14l, display optical system; [0111]) measured ([0118]: element 134 determines if the pupil is aligned with the optical axis and element 14 is moved to realign the pupils with the optical axis) by the image sensor (Fig. 6a-- element 134, sensor; [0113]) of the given optical assembly (Fig. 6a-- element 14r and 14l, display optical system; [0111]).
However, Lewis does not explicitly disclose wherein image warping is applied to the image data to compensate for a change in alignment of the given optical assembly.
Lewis and Samec are related as pertaining to the field of the head-mounted devices. Samec discloses wherein image warping is applied to the image data ([1695]: software is used to provide the appropriate optical correction to adjust projected images) to compensate for a change in alignment of the given optical assembly ([0415] and [1695]: software is used to provide the appropriate optical correction to adjust projected images based on eye misalignment).
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 head-mounted device of Lewis with the image data warping of Samec in order to create a device which may display corrected images to compensate for any ocular anomalies (Samec, [1685]).
With respect to Claim 6, Lewis and Samec disclose the head-mounted device (Fig. 1—element 2, display device; [0055]) defined in claim 5 and Lewis further discloses wherein the measured change in alignment includes optical assembly rotation away from a given orientation ([0110]: element 2 includes gaze detection elements via element 134 which is a combination of a visible light and IR camera) and wherein the images are adjusted ([0118]: element 134 determines if the pupil is unaligned with the optical axis and element 14 is moved to adjust the position of the image in order to realign the image and the pupils with the optical axis) to compensate for the optical assembly rotation ([0099]-[0101]: element 120 includes a variable focus adjuster to adjust the focal length of the image to align the display along the optical path).
However, Lewis does not explicitly disclose wherein image warping is applied to the image data to compensate for the optical assembly rotation.
Lewis and Samec are related as pertaining to the field of the head-mounted devices. Samec discloses wherein image warping is applied to the image data ([1695]: software may be used to alter the image to account for anomalies in the user’s eyes) to compensate for the optical assembly rotation ([0415] and [1695]: software is used to provide the appropriate optical correction to adjust projected images based on eye misalignment).
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 head-mounted device of Lewis with the image data warping of Samec in order to create a device which may display corrected images to compensate for any ocular anomalies (Samec, [1685]).
With respect to Claim 11, Lewis and Samec disclose the head-mounted device (Fig. 1—element 2, display device; [0055]) defined in claim 1 and Lewis further discloses the sensor (Fig. 6a-- element 134, sensor; [0113]) of each of the optical assemblies (Fig. 6a-- element 14r and 14l, display optical system; [0111]) comprises an image sensor (Fig. 6a-- element 134, sensor; [0113]), wherein the measured eye characteristics ([0113]: 134 is a visible light camera that provides image data of the user’s pupil) include eye opening angle ([0211]: the position of an eyelid may be used for gaze tracking purposes), wherein the display (Fig. 6a-- element 120, microdisplay unit; [0099]) is configured to use the eye opening angle in warping the image by comparing the currently measured eye characteristics comprise a currently measured eye opening angle ([0211]: a change in eyelid position compared to image data may trigger image calibration), and the previously measured eye characteristics comprise a previously measured eye opening angle ([0211]: a change in eyelid position compared to image data may trigger image calibration).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US2013050833A1, of record in the IDS dated 1/29/2024) in view of Samec (US 20160270656 A1) further in view of Lang (US 20190333480 A1, of record in the IDS dated 1/29/2024).
With respect to Claim 7, Lewis and Samec disclose the head-mounted device (Fig. 1—element 2, display device; [0055]) defined in claim 6 and Lewis further discloses wherein the display (Fig. 6a-- element 120, microdisplay unit; [0099]) However, Lewis does not disclose wherein the image warping is applied to the image data to rotate the image by an equal and opposite amount from the optical assembly rotation away from the given orientation.
Lewis and Lang are related as both pertaining to head-mounted devices. Lang does disclose an optical assemblies device ([0389]: element 515, OHMD unit) wherein the image warping is applied to the image data ([0389]: re-orienting and/or rotating virtual data) to rotate the image by an equal and opposite amount from the optical assembly rotation away from the desired orientation ([0389]: element 584 may be rotated to compensate for a change in position). 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 head-mounted device of Lewis with the rotation compensation of Lang in order to create a device which may be calibrated to different users (Lang, [0389]).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US2013050833A1, of record in the IDS dated 1/29/2024) in view of Samec (US 20160270656 A1) further in view of Franklin (US2020064635A1, of record in the IDS dated 1/29/2024).
With respect to Claim 8, Lewis and Samec disclose the head-mounted device (Fig. 1—element 2, display device; [0055]) defined in claim 1 and Lewis further discloses the optical assemblies device (Fig. 6a-- element 14, display optical system; [0111]).
However, Lewis does not further disclose wherein the optical assemblies device each comprise an optical assembly electrode configured to make electrical contact with an electrode in a respective optical assembly position sensor electrode array.
Lewis and Franklin are related as both pertaining to head-mounted devices. Franklin does disclose wherein the optical assemblies (Fig. 4—element 70, left and right display modules; [0035]) each comprise an optical assembly electrode ([0031]: element 58 may be a piezoelectric actuator) configured to make electrical contact ([0035]: element 48 includes element 44, element 58 moves element 14 to be in contact with element 48 via element 70E) with an electrode (Fig. 3—element 44, capacitive proximity sensor electrodes; [0034]) in a respective optical assembly position sensor electrode array (Fig. 3—element 20, proximity sensor; [0034]). 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 head-mounted device of Lewis with the position sensor electrode arrays of Franklin in order to create a device which may detect the proximity of the user’s nose to the HMD (Franklin, [0034]).
With respect to Claim 9, Lewis and Franklin discloses the head-mounted device (Fig. 1—element 2, display device; [0055]) defined in claim 8 and Lewis further discloses the optical assemblies device (Fig. 6a-- element 14, display optical system; [0111]) are slidably coupled to guide rails (Fig. 6a—element 137, armature; [0101]: the armature may slide along elements) and wherein the head-mounted device (Fig. 1—element 2, display device; [0055]) comprises positioners (Fig. 6a—element 135, adjuster; [0100]) configured to move ([0099]: 135 changes distance of light processing elements) the optical assemblies device (Fig. 6a-- element 14, display optical system; [0111])
Lewis and Franklin are related as both pertaining to head-mounted devices. Franklin does disclose a head-mounted device (Fig. 2—electronic device, 10; [0029]) comprising positioners (Fig. 4—element 58, positioners; [0031]) configured to move the optical assemblies device (Fig. 4—element 70, left and right display modules; [0035]) so that the optical assembly electrodes ([0031]: element 58 may be a piezoelectric actuator) make contact ([0035]: element 48 includes element 44, element 58 moves element 14 to be in contact with element 48 via element 70E) with the electrodes in the optical assembly position sensor electrode arrays (Fig. 3—element 20, proximity sensor; [0034]).
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 head-mounted device of Lewis with the position sensor electrode arrays of Franklin in order to create a device which may detect the proximity of the user’s nose to the HMD (Franklin, [0034]).
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.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lewis (US2013050833A1, of record in the IDS dated 1/29/2024).
With respect to Claim 20, Lewis discloses a head-mounted device (Fig. 1—element 2, display device; [0055]), comprising:
a head-mounted support (Fig. 6a-- element 115, frame; [0057]);
an optical assembly (Fig. 6a-- element 14l and 14r, left and right display optical system; [0111]) in the head-mounted support (Fig. 6a-- element 115, frame; [0057]), wherein the optical assembly (Fig. 6a-- element 14l and 14r, left and right display optical system; [0111]) has a lens (Fig. 6a-- element 118, lens; [0111]) through which an image ([0112]: a virtual image is visible on element 118) is provided to an eye box (Fig. 6a-- the space behind the lenses which accommodates the eyes), a camera (Fig. 6a-- element 134l and 134r, sensors; [0113]) configured to capture an eye image from the eye box (Fig. 6a-- the space behind the lenses which accommodates the eyes) to measure an eye characteristic ([0113]: 134 is a visible light camera that provides image data of the user’s left and right pupil), and a display (Fig. 6a-- element 14l and 14r, left and right display optical system; [0111]) configured to display the image; and
control circuitry (Fig. 6a—element 136, control circuitry; [0057]) configured to:
store the eye characteristic measured at a first time as a reference point for the optical module (Fig. 6a-- element 14l and 14r, left and right display optical system; [0111]) being in a properly aligned initial position ([0003]: the device may store inter-pupillary distance data and determine position adjustment needed to align the display),
determine a position change of the optical module (Fig. 6a-- element 14l and 14r, left and right display optical system; [0111]) from the properly aligned initial position to a misaligned position based on a comparison between the stored eye characteristic measured at the first time and the eye characteristic measured at a second time ([0003]: the device may store inter-pupillary distance data and determine position adjustment needed to align the display) after the first time ([0118]: element 134 determines if the pupil is unaligned with the optical axis and element 14 is moved to adjust the position of the image in order to realign the image and the pupils with the optical axis), and
adjust the image for the display based on the position change of the optical module determined based on the comparison ([0118]: element 134 determines if the pupil is unaligned with the optical axis and element 14 is moved to adjust the position of the image in order to realign the image and the pupils with the optical axis).
With respect to Claim 21, Lewis discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 20, and Lewis further discloses wherein the position change ([0003]: the device may store inter-pupillary distance data and determine position adjustment needed to align the display) of the optical module (Fig. 6a-- element 14l and 14r, left and right display optical system; [0111]) is determined based on detecting a drop event ([0185]: changes detected along the depth axis may be used to indicate that the near-eye display system has moved and trigger an alignment check ).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-19 are allowed.
With respect to Claim 12, Lewis discloses a head-mounted device, comprising:
a head-mounted support (Fig. 6a-- element 115, frame; [0057]); optical assemblies device (Fig. 6a-- element 14, display optical system; [0111]) mounted (Fig. 6a—element 14 is mounted in element 115) in the head-mounted support (Fig. 6a-- element 115, frame; [0057]) and including a given optical assembly (Fig. 6a-- element 14r and 14l, display optical system; [0111]);
optical assembly position sensors (Fig. 6a-- element 134, sensor; [0113]), wherein the optical assembly position sensors (Fig. 6a-- element 134, sensor; [0113]) are configured to measure changes in alignment of the optical assemblies device (Fig. 6a-- element 14, display optical system; [0111]),
Lewis and Franklin are related as both pertaining to head-mounted devices. Franklin does disclose a head-mounted device (Fig. 2—electronic device, 10; [0029]) comprising:
optical assembly position sensors (Fig. 3—element 20, proximity sensor; [0034]) having arrays of electrodes (Fig. 3—element 44, capacitive proximity sensor electrodes; [0034]), the arrays of electrodes (Fig. 3—element 44, capacitive proximity sensor electrodes; [0034] including a given array of electrodes (Fig. 3—element 44, capacitive proximity sensor electrodes on left or right side; [0034] for the given optical assembly (Fig. 6a-- element 14r and 14l, display optical system; [0111]); and
measurement circuitry ([0035]: element 44 may be formed on a flexible printed circuit board) coupled to the optical assembly position sensors (Fig. 3—element 20, proximity sensor; [0034]).
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 head-mounted device of Lewis with the array of electrodes of Franklin in order to create a device which may detect the proximity of the user’s nose to the HMD (Franklin, [0034]).
However, neither Lewis, Franklin, or any other combination of the art discloses and the optical assembly position sensors including an optical assembly electrode on the given optical assembly, wherein the optical assembly electrode is configured to make contact with a first electrode in the given array when the given optical assembly in an aligned position, and wherein the optical assembly electrode is configured to make contact with a second electrode in the given array when the given optical assembly is in a misaligned position, in combination with all other limitations of Claim 12.
With respect to Claims 13-19, these claims are dependent on Claim 12
and are allowable at least for the reasons stated supra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MACKENZI BOURQUINE whose telephone number is (571)272-5956. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 4:30 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
/MACKENZI BOURQUINE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights