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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities: Numerals 204 in Fig. 9B appear to point to optical centers 224, rather than a control. In Fig. 9C, the rightmost 900a should be relabeled 900b. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yates (US 2011/0127305 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yates teaches a head-wearable apparatus (head-worn viewing system 90), comprising:
a display (visual display apparatus 92);
a head mount positionable on a human head (head strap 96);
a tension adjustment actuator (see annotated Fig. 9 below) integrated with the head mount (96); and
an arm (fixed member 94 and adjustment device 100) connectable to the display (92) and the head mount (96), the arm (94 and 100) comprising:
a display tilt adjustment member (see Fig. 10 and paragraph 0055);
a display eye relief adjustment member (see Fig. 11 and paragraph 0056); and
a display height adjustment member (see Fig. 12 and paragraph 0057).
PNG
media_image1.png
398
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Yates teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Yates
further teaches the head-wearable apparatus of claim 1, wherein the display eye relief adjustment member comprises a horizontal rail slidably coupled to the display (see paragraph 0056 and Fig. 11 showing visual display apparatus 92 sliding horizontally along a rail disposed in adjustment device 100).
Regarding claim 4, Yates teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Yates
further teaches the head-wearable apparatus of claim 1, wherein the display height adjustment member comprises a vertical rail slidably coupled to the display (paragraph 0057 and Fig. 12 showing visual display apparatus 92 sliding vertically along a rail disposed in adjustment device 100).
Regarding claim 6, Yates teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Yates
further teaches the head-wearable apparatus of claim 1, wherein the display (92) is spaced apart from the human head when donned (see paragraph 0056 stating that the device may be adjusted to increase a distance between a users’ eyes and visual display apparatus 92).
Regarding claim 9, Yates teaches a mounting system (90) for a head-mountable display
(HMD) (92), the mounting system (90) comprising:
an adapter (mounting bracket accommodation 98) connectable to the HMD (92) and a head mount (96); and
an arm (94 and 100) attachable to the adapter (98), the arm (94 and 100) comprising:
an HMD tilt adjustment member (see Fig. 10 and paragraph 0055);
an HMD eye relief adjustment member (see Fig. 11 and paragraph 0056); and
an HMD height adjustment member (see Fig. 12 and paragraph 0057).
Regarding claim 13, Yates teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 as stated above.
Yates further teaches the mounting system of claim 9, wherein at least one of the HMD tilt adjustment member (Fig. 10) or the HMD height adjustment member (Fig. 12) is movable to adjust an HMD gaze level based on an HMD application (see Figs. 10 and 12 showing that both the tilt adjustment member and the height adjustment member are movable and capable of adjusting to a user’s gaze level).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yates as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of De Nardi et al. (US 10,901,225 B1), hereinafter De Nardi.
Regarding claim 2, Yates teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Yates lacks the specific teaching the display tilt adjustment member comprises: a control; a curved rack; and a pinion gear connected to the curved rack, the pinion gear actuatable in response to a user input at the control. Instead, the display tilt adjustment member taught by Yates is a hinge.
De Nardi teaches a head-wearable apparatus with a display (HMD system 400), a head mount (strap 406), and an arm (adjustment mechanism 404) connected to the display (400) and head mount (406). The arm (404) includes a display tilt adjustment member (first track 412) that comprises a control (first electromechanical actuator 420), a curved rack (first toothed rack 432), and a pinion gear (first pinion 434) connected to the curved rack (432), the pinion gear (434) actuatable in response to a user input at the control (420).
Yates and De Nardi are considered to be analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to utilize a curved rack and a pinion gear to adjust the tilt of the display. Doing so would allow the display to move in a radial direction with respect to a user’s eyes (De Nardi: first direction 414). Compare this with the hinge of Yates, which forces the display to move towards or away from a user’s eyes as the tilt is adjusted (see Yates, Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 5, Yates teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Yates teaches a first display tilt adjustment member (see Fig. 10 and paragraph 0055), but fails to teach a second display tilt adjustment member. Yates discloses only one mechanism for adjusting the tilt of the display.
De Nardi teaches a display tilt adjustment member comprising a first display tilt adjustment member (412) and an arm (404) further comprising a second display tilt adjustment member (second track 416).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the teachings of Yates by incorporating a second display tilt adjustment member into the head-wearable apparatus. Doing so would provide an additional way for the display’s tilt to be adjusted for the comfort of a user.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yates as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2018/0364491 A1), hereinafter Park.
Yates teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Yates fails to teach a removable light seal attached to the display.
Park teaches a head-wearable apparatus (HMD 100) comprising a removable (see paragraph 0051) light seal (light-shielding part 117) attached to a display (main body 110).
Park is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to include a removable light seal attached to the display. Doing so would shield the inner portion of the display from external light. Making the light shield removable would allow users to select a light shield based on the particular dimensions of their face and also replace the light shield if it becomes damaged (see Park, paragraph 0051).
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yates as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ashida (US 2022/0326730 A1).
Yates teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Yates lacks the specific teaching that a counterbalance weight is attached to the head mount opposite the display.
Ashida teaches a head-wearable apparatus (HMD 101) comprising a counterbalance weight (weight 5) attached to a head mount (HMD holding section 3) opposite a display (HMD body 1).
Ashida is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to attach a counterbalance weight to the head mount opposite the display. The weight would help to balance the apparatus on a user’s head by cancelling a force causing the apparatus to slide toward the front of a user’s head due to the weight of the display (see Ashida, paragraph 0090).
Claims 10-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yates as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of De Nardi.
Regarding claim 10, Yates teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 as stated above. Yates fails to teach that the HMD tilt adjustment member comprises an arcuate track along which the HMD is rotatable relative to an optical center.
De Nardi teaches a mounting system (400) for an HMD (display apparatus 120) including an arm (404) with an HMD tilt adjustment member (412). The HMD tilt adjustment member (412) comprises an arcuate track (432) along which the HMD (120) is rotatable (HMD moves along first direction 414) relative to an optical center (user’s eyes 144).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to utilize an arcuate track to rotate the HMD relative to an optical center. Doing so would allow the display to move in a radial direction with respect to a user’s eyes (De Nardi: first direction 414). Compare this with the hinge of Yates, which forces the display to move towards or away from a user’s eyes as the tilt is adjusted (see Yates, Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 11, Yates in view of De Nardi teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 as stated above. Yates in view of De Nardi further teaches the mounting system of claim 10, wherein the optical center (144) corresponds to a human eye (see De Nardi col. 6, lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 12, Yates in view of De Nardi teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 as stated above. De Nardi is not explicit as to whether the arcuate track comprises a fixed radius relative to the user’s eyes. However, configuring the arcuate track (De Nardi: 432) to have a fixed radius relative to the user’s eyes (De Nardi: 144) would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Doing so would ensure that the display maintains the same distance from the user’s eyes when the tilt angle is adjusted. The user could then adjust the tilt angle to their comfort while the image displayed on the display remains in focus.
Regarding claim 14, Yates teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 as stated above. Yates further teaches a mounting bracket (mounting bracket 58) attachable to the arm (94 and 100) and the HMD (92) but fails to teach a sensor positioned in a frame of the HMD adjacent to the mounting bracket.
De Nardi teaches a mounting system (100 and 400) for an HMD (display apparatus 120) that includes multiple sensors (see col. 3, lines 32-37; see also Fig. 1 showing depth cameras 108, localization devices 110, photographic cameras 112, and eye-tracking subsystem 124) positioned in a frame of the HMD (120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to incorporate sensors in the frame of the HMD adjacent to the mounting bracket. Doing so would allow for applications such as eye-tracking (see De Nardi col. 3, lines 49-54) or mapping the local environment (see De Nardi col. 3, lines 32-37).
Regarding claim 15, Yates in view of De Nardi teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 as stated above. Yates in view of De Nardi further teaches the mounting system of claim 14, further comprising a sensor positioned within the mounting bracket.
Examiner Note: De Nardi teaches multiple sensors positioned within various parts of the mounting system. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to place at least one sensor in the mounting bracket, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yates, and further in view of De Nardi.
Regarding claim 16, Yates teaches a head-wearable apparatus (90), comprising:
a display (92);
an adapter (98); and
an arm (94 and 100) removably attached to at least one of the adapter (98) or the display (92),
the arm (94 and 100) comprising at least three degrees of freedom (see Figs. 10-12 and paragraphs 0055-57).
Yates fails to teach that the arm comprises an arcuate track along which the display is rotatable relative to an optical center.
De Nardi teaches a head-wearable apparatus (400) comprising a display (120) and an arm (404) comprising an arcuate track (432) along which the display (120) is rotatable (along 414) relative to an optical center (144).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to utilize an arcuate track to rotate the display relative to an optical center. Doing so would allow the display to move in a radial direction with respect to a user’s eyes (De Nardi: first direction 414). Compare this with the hinge of Yates, which forces the display to move towards or away from a user’s eyes as the tilt is adjusted (see Yates, Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 17, Yates in view of De Nardi teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 as stated above. Yates in view of De Nardi further teaches the head-wearable apparatus of claim 16, wherein: the arm (Yates: 94 and 100) comprises a vertical adjustment rail (Yates: Fig. 12) and a horizontal adjustment rail (Yates: Fig. 11); and the adapter (Yates: 98) comprises a mating surface (58) engageable with the arm (Yates: 94 and 100), the mating surface being parallel to the vertical adjustment rail (Yates: see Figs. 9 and 12) and perpendicular to the horizontal adjustment rail (Yates: see Figs. 9 and 11).
Regarding claim 19, Yates in view of De Nardi teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 as stated above. Yates in view of De Nardi further teaches the head-wearable apparatus of claim 16, further comprising a head mount positionable onto a human head (Yates: head strap 96; De Nardi: support assembly 402), the head mount comprising: an adjustable webbing (Yates: see annotated Fig. 9 below; De Nardi: halo strap 406); a tension dial integrated with the adjustable webbing (Yates: see annotated Fig. 9 below); and a front portion (Yates: see annotated Fig. 9 below; De Nardi: forehead support 410) sized and shaped to receive the adapter (Yates: 98).
PNG
media_image2.png
431
633
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Yates in view of De Nardi teaches all of the limitations of claim 19 as stated above. Yates in view of De Nardi further teaches the head-wearable apparatus of claim 19, further comprising a secondary connection (Yates: 58) configured to attach the display (Yates: 92) to at least one of the head mount (Yates: 96) or the adapter (Yates: 98).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yates in view of De Nardi as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Law et al. (US 2024/0111163 A1), hereinafter Law.
Yates in view of De Nardi teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 as stated above. Yates in view of De Nardi lacks the specific teaching that a removable strap is connectable to the display, the removable strap being tetherable to at least on of a power supply, a computing device, or an external display.
Law teaches a head-wearable apparatus (display system 3000) with a removable strap (strap 3101) connectable to a display (display unit housing 3222), wherein the removable strap (3101) is tetherable to a power supply (see paragraph 0771).
Law is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the teachings of Yates in view of De Nardi by incorporating a removable strap tetherable to a power supply into the head-wearable apparatus. Making the strap removable would allow the strap to be cleaned or replaced by a user (see Law, paragraph 0769). Including means to tether the strap to a power supply would allow for the apparatus to be charged (see Law, paragraph 0771).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS TERRY MULARSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-0284. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Imani Hayman can be reached at (571)270-5528. 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.
/R.T.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841