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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group III, without traverse, is acknowledged. The claims of Groups I and II (claims 1-10, inclusive) have been cancelled by Applicant in the 11/21/2025 claim amendments and response.
Newly submitted claim 32 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claim 32 is directed to an apparatus having “wireless communication circuitry” and features related to position information via a wireless link. These features were in independent claim 6 (*now cancelled) (and only in claim 6 of the original claims), which was the independent claim of Group II, a claim that was non-elected without traverse.
Accordingly, claim 32 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 11-13, 28 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Toride (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0413296 A1).
Regarding claim 11:
Toride teaches: Glasses (Fig. 1A: glasses), comprising: a housing (Fig. 1A: 110: Frame);
a waveguide supported by the housing (Fig. 1A: 120 display assembly is supported by housing, in combination with para. 22, the display assembly can include a “waveguide assembly”);
a display configured to supply an image to the waveguide (para. 22, the display assembly 120 supplies image light to waveguide),
wherein the waveguide provides the image to an eye box (para. 22, e.g. “A waveguide assembly includes one or more waveguides. Light from the light source is in-coupled into the one or more waveguides, which outputs the light in a manner such that there is pupil replication in an eyebox of the headset 100.” (see entire paragraph 22)) also and
wherein the display is configured to adjust the image based on measured misalignment between the display and the waveguide (e.g. para. 54, which reads in part: “The display controller 250 may determine a movement instruction that corrects for binocular disparity (e.g., misalignment) between two waveguides (e.g., waveguides for the left and right eyes). The display controller 250 may receive measurements from one or more piezoelectric movement sensors monitoring a relative movement between a first waveguide assembly and a second waveguide assembly of the display assembly 200. The display controller 250 can determine movement instructions modifying at least one of a first image light projected by the first waveguide assembly or a second image light projected by the second waveguide assembly based on the relative movement”.
Other example teachings: para. 53, 69).
Regarding claim 12:
Toride teaches: the glasses defined in claim 11 wherein the housing comprises a glasses frame (Fig. 1A: housing comprises a frame 110).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to make use of known physical configurations of glasses.
Regarding claim 13:
Toride teaches: the glasses defined in claim 12 wherein the display comprises a projector display (para. 22, “The display assembly 120 may use a projector assembly and a waveguide assembly to provide light to the user.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to make use of known physical configurations of image members.
Regarding claim 28:
Toride teaches: the glasses defined in claim 11, wherein the display has a display housing (Toride, Fig. 1A: display is integrated with frame/housing), the glasses further comprising: a position sensor mounted on a substrate that is attached to the display housing (Fig. 1A: 190).
Regarding claim 33: see claim 11.
Toride teaches: a head-mounted device (glasses of claim 11. See also Fig. 1A), comprising.
The remaining elements of claim 33 correspond to those of claim 11, the same rationale for rejection applies. The difference between the two claims is claim 11 is directed to glasses; claim 33 is a broader apparatus of “head-mounted device”.
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(s) 14-17, 20, 24 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toride
Regarding claim 14:
Toride teaches: the glasses defined in claim 13 further comprising a display position sensor configured to measure a display orientation of the projector display (para.49, the device can have a supplemental sensor, such as one that can give measurements including that a movement of the display assembly has occurred (i.e. “rapid acceleration and sudden stop (e.g., corresponding to a drop of the headset”). This corresponds to a teaching of a change in orientation of the projection display) (another teaching: Fig. 7: 740).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to monitor changes in display architecture during use.
Regarding claim 15:
Toride teaches: the glasses defined in claim 14 wherein the display is configured to adjust the image based at least partly on the display orientation (see e.g. para. 49 in combination with par. 4, which summarizes that the invention of Toride is of: “A display assembly … that monitors movements in a waveguide assembly and corrects for aberrations in image light caused by the monitored movements.” See also rest of para. 4). Correcting for the image based on the display orientation (movement that is monitored, as mapped in claim 14), is all of taught and suggested by Toride, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16:
Toride teaches: the glasses defined in claim 15 further comprising a waveguide position sensor configured to measure a waveguide orientation of the waveguide (e.g. claim 1, “one or more piezoelectric movement sensors coupled to the waveguide assembly, the one or more piezoelectric movement sensors configured to monitor the movement of the waveguide assembly”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to monitor changes in display architecture during use.
Regarding claim 17:
Toride teaches: the glasses defined in claim 16 wherein the display is configured to adjust the image based at least partly on the measured waveguide orientation (see claim 1, function of display controller, “to correct for the amount of aberration in the image light based in part on the monitored movement.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to monitor changes in display architecture during use and correct user experience accordingly.
Regarding claim 20:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the glasses defined in claim 16 wherein the display position sensor comprises a first inertial measurement unit attached to the display and
wherein the waveguide position sensor comprises a second inertial measurement unit attached to the waveguide, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Toride teaches that position sensors can include an IMU (inertial measurement units) (para. 33). Modifying Toride, in view of same, such that both display position sensor and waveguide position sensors, per Toride, also include IMUs, also per Toride, is all of taught and suggested by Toride, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 20, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 24:
Toride teaches; the glasses defined in claim 11 further comprising a position sensor (Toride, Fig. 1A: 190; see also Fig. 4 for more examples), wherein the waveguide helps prevent the position sensor from being exposed to moisture (para., 60 movement sensors on “eye-side” or “an inward-facing area” will be under the waveguide, which will in turn prevent or protect the sensor from moisture exposure).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to have design flexibility and protect sensitive components.
Regarding claim 31:
Toride teaches: the glasses defined in claim 28 further comprising: an additional position sensor mounted to the waveguide (e.g. Fig. 3-4, which teach/illustrate configurations of glasses with additional position sensors mounted to waveguide).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to monitor changes in display architecture during use and correct user experience accordingly.
Claim(s) 18, 19 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toride in view of Bradski (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0094981).
Regarding claim 18:
The applied reference(-s) to claim 17 does not teach claim 18. Consider the following.
In analogous art, Bradski teaches: the glasses defined in claim 17 wherein the display is configured to adjust the image by warping the image to compensate for image warping due to misalignment between the projector display and the waveguide (para. 275: Image warping is known as one means to correct distortion in image data, such as that caused by misalignment per Toride).
Modifying the applied references, in view of Bradski, such that the correction for misalignment, per Toride, is done via image warping, per Bradski, is all of taught and suggested by Toride, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 18, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 19:
Toride and Bradski teach: the glasses defined in claim 18 wherein the glasses are operable with a peripheral having a position sensor configured to measure a position of the peripheral and
wherein the display is configured to adjust the image based at least partly on the measured position of the peripheral (para.42, Toride teaches several embodiments whereby positions sensors can be placed in multiple locations. In terms of with a peripheral (i.e. a separate device in communication the glasses), see Bradski, para. 180, which teaches an AR/MR system whereby users can interact using any combination of devices, which “include, but are not limited to, a smart phone, tablet device, heads-mounted display (HMD), gaming console, or any other device capable of communicating data and providing an interface or display to the user”. See also paras. 909-912, 970). Per para. 599-604, Bradski also (like Toride) teaches the importance of capturing movement or motion data/pose data from various points (here, in this example, a user’s head, eyes, and/or hands). This can be done via sensors of glasses and peripherals. See also para. 548, 549, 774).
Modifying the applied references, in view of Bradski, to have included the above (i.e. a position sensor at a peripheral, measuring movement/orientation/position of same), and use this to adjust the image (as mapped in claim 11) is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 34: see claim 18.
Claim 34 corresponds to claim 18, which depends from claims 17, 16, 15, 14. See mapping below. Modifying the applied references, in view of same, such that the combination of the aforementioned claims is present, per in claim 18 and mapped above, is all of taught and suggested by Toride, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A). See below.
the head-mounted device defined in claim 33 further comprising: a display position sensor configured to measure a display orientation of the display (claim 14); and a waveguide position sensor configured to measure a waveguide orientation of the waveguide (claim 16),
wherein the display is configured to adjust the image based at least partly on the measured display orientation and the measured waveguide orientation (claim 15, 17) by warping the image to compensate for image warping due to misalignment between the display and the waveguide (claim18).
Claim(s) 21-22 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toride in view of Son (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0179218).
Regarding claim 21:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the glasses defined in claim 13 further comprising a display position sensor configured to measure a display orientation of the projector display (Toride, para. 49, the device can have a supplemental sensor, such as one that can give measurements including that a movement of the display assembly has occurred (i.e. “rapid acceleration and sudden stop (e.g., corresponding to a drop of the headset”). This corresponds to a teaching of a change in orientation of the projection display) (another teaching: Fig. 7: 740),
wherein the housing is configured to form a sealed environmental protection enclosure for the display position sensor (Son, para, 21: “the sensor unit may be located inside an eyeglass frame” – placing sensors inside an eyeglass frame (sealed protection enclosure) is known), and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 21, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 22:
Son teaches: the glasses defined in claim 11 further comprising an environmentally sealed position sensor (para. 21, sensors inside eyeglass frames are known. Such as sensors of Toride, see Fig. 4 and mapped above).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to incorporate design configurations of eyeglasses to protect sensitive components.
Regarding claim 29:
Son teaches: the glasses defined in claim 28 further comprising: a position sensor enclosure that provides the position sensor with environmental protection (para. 21, sensors inside eyeglass frames are known. Placement inside the frame corresponds to an enclosure with environmental protection. Toride teaches position sensors, as mapped above; e.g. Toride, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to incorporate design configurations of eyeglasses to protect sensitive components.
Claim(s) 23 and 30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toride in view of Webster (U.S. Patent No. 7,059,040)
Additionally add Son for claim 30.
Regarding claim 23:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the glasses defined in claim 11 further comprising: a position sensor (Toride, Fig. 1A: 190; see also Fig. 4 for more examples), and
a lens that helps prevent the position sensor from being exposed to moisture (see Webster, Summary, “In accordance with the present invention, an optical module includes a substrate having a base and a sidewall. The optical module further includes an image sensor coupled to the base and a lens housing coupled to the sidewall. The sidewall includes a joint surface and the lens housing includes a mounting surface. The mounting surface of the lens housing is coupled to the joint surface of the substrate thus coupling the lens housing to the sidewall. In one embodiment, the mounting surface and the joint surface are planar and are bonded together with adhesive as a butt bond. The mounting surface has a width sufficient to provide a desired level of protection, e.g., a hermetic seal, of the image sensor from the ambient environment.”, which describes a lens and sensor configuration whereby the lens helps protect the sensor (a hermetic seal will protect from moisture), and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 23, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 30:
Webster teaches: the glasses defined in claim 29, wherein the position sensor enclosure comprises moisture-blocking polymer (Fig. 3A and related description, which teaches an adhesive 302 (polymer) that can block or protect image sensor from moisture. Applying this to the sensors of Toride, to also protect same from moisture, would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toride in view of Nakamura (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0292673).
Regarding claim 25:
The applied reference(-s) to claim 11 does not specify claim 25. Consider the following.
In analogous art, Nakamura teaches: the glasses defined in claim 11, wherein the housing comprises a main portion and a temple coupled to the main portion by a hinge ( para. 39 “The eyeglasses 10 are provided with a front portion 12, and temples 16 coupled to opposite end portions of the front portion 12 to be foldable via hinges 14.” See also Fig, 1).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to make use of known eyeglass configurations.
Regarding claim 26:
Toride teaches: the glasses defined in claim 25, wherein the waveguide is supported by the main portion of the housing in front of the eye box (see Fig. 4: 425, this is one embodiment that teaches this configuration).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to make use of known eyeglass configurations.
Regarding claim 27:
Toride teaches: the glasses defined in claim 26, wherein the display is disposed at the main portion of the housing adjacent to the hinge and aligned with the temple (Fig. 1B: display is aligned with temple).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to make use of known eyeglass configurations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, relevant to optical devices and imaging.
* * * * *
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sarah Lhymn whose telephone number is (571)270-0632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM 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, Xiao Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. 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.
Sarah Lhymn
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/Sarah Lhymn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613