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 .
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.
Claims 23-24 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.
The term “flexible” in claim 23 and 24 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “flexible” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination the scope of this term was interpreted as any substrate that is capable of being flexed.
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) 1-7, 12, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter (US 20200233213 A1) in view of Fukumoto (US 20190064226 A1) and Aferzon (US 20190076013 A1).
Re Claim 1, Porter discloses, on Fig. 4A-4B and 5, a head-mounted device (Fig. 4a: HMD 50), comprising: a head-mounted frame (Fig. 4a: unlabeled frame, previously labeled frame F in Fig 2a) [Par 44 ] with a frame that extends laterally across the head-mounted frame (nose bridge 34); left and right projectors configured to output respective left and right images(first and second projectors for left and right virtual images 22L and 22R) [Par 16 and 49-51]; left and right lenses in the head-mounted frame (L1L and L1R); and a strain gauge (sensor 52 can be a strain gauge) [Par 49] coupled to the frame between the left and right lenses (see Fig. 4a), and a first portion with first strain gauge traces and a second portion with second strain gauge traces (sensor 52 and additional sensors 56 can be strain gauges) [Par 49-50].
But Porter does not explicitly disclose wherein the head mounted frame comprises a metal frame, strain gauge having a flexible printed circuit.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Fukumoto teaches, on Fig. 1, that it is desirable in strain gauges, to include a strain gauge having a flexible printed circuit (strain gauge 12 on FPC 20) [Par 49].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Porter with Fukumoto in order to provide, ease of replacement, as taught by Fukumoto [Par 49].
But Porter in view of Fukumoto, does not explicitly disclose, wherein the head mounted frame comprises a metal frame.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Aferzon teaches, on Fig. 1, that it is desirable in head mounted displays to include wherein the head mounted frame (Frame 102) comprises a metal frame (frame 102 can be metal [Par 42].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Porter in view of Fukumoto, with Aferzon in order to provide for an eye frame, ear pieces, and holder, as taught by Aferzon [Par 42].
Re Claim 2, Porter in view of Fukumoto and Aferzon discloses, the head-mounted device defined in claim 1, and Porter further discloses on Fig. 4a-4b, wherein the metal frame;
has first (surface of nose bridge 34 where sensor 52 is attached) and second planar surfaces (surface of the hinge of HMD 50 that attaches near lens L1r where sensor 56 attaches) and wherein the first portion is attached to the first planar surface and the second portion is attached to the second planar surface (the first and second planar surfaces have strain gauges 52 and 56 respectively) [Par 49-51].
Re Claim 3, Porter in view of Fukumoto and Aferzon, discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 2, and Porter further discloses on Fig. 4a-4b, wherein the first planar surface (horizontal surface of sensor 52) and second planar surface (Vertical surface of sensor 56) have respective surface normals that are orthogonal to each other (normal of sensor 52 would be vertical and normal of sensor 56 would be horizontal) [Par 49-51].
Re Claim 4, Porter in view of Fukumoto and Aferzon, discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 3.
But Porter in view of Fukumoto and Aferzon discloses, wherein the first planar surface extends across an upwardly facing portion of the metal frame and wherein the second planar surface extends across a horizontally facing portion of the metal frame.
Note the Court has held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification to the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art; see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1059) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553 188 (USPQ7 (CCPA 1975).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the location of the first planar surface so that it is facing upwards and the second planar surface so that it is across a horizontally facing surface, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of an element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art.
One would have been motivated to rearrange the location of the first and second surface for the purpose of providing alternate arrangements of the elements for identifying flexure of a different face of the frame [Par 49].
Re Claim 5, Porter in view of Fukumoto and Aferzon discloses, the head-mounted device defined in claim 1, and Porter further discloses on Fig. 4a-4b (specific embodiment) and Fig. 5 (referenced for its perspective view), wherein the metal frame comprises a C-shaped metal frame (unlabeled frame of Fig. 4a can be seen in 5 with a C shape) having a top portion that extends across the head-mounted frame over the left and right lenses (Fig. 5: unlabeled frame bar extends over left and right lenses 12l and 12r) and has left and right side portions that extend downwardly from respective left and right ends of the top portion (Fig. 5: unlabeled frame bar extends down along the side of lenses 12r and 12L) and wherein the strain gauge is attached to the top portion (sensor 52 containing strain gauge is on the top bar of frame) [Par 49-51].
Re Claim 6, Porter in view of Fukumoto and Aferzon discloses, the head-mounted device defined in claim 5, and Aferzon further teaches, on Fig. 1a, wherein the head-mounted frame comprises polymer covering at least part of the metal frame (frame 102 can be a metal and polymer composite material) [Par 42].
Re claim 7, Porter in view of Fukumoto and Aferzon, the head-mounted device defined in claim 6, and Aferzon further discloses on Fig. 1, wherein the top portion comprises a metal bar (eye frame 104 has a metal bar in a top portion)[Par 42] with a central portion that has a rectangular cross-sectional profile (Fig. 1 top bar in eye frame 104 is rectangular), and Porter further discloses on Fig. 5, wherein the strain gauge (Strain gauge on sensor 52) is attached to the central portion (strain gauge 52 is on rectangular central portion).
Re Claim 12, Porter in view of Fukumoto and Aferzon discloses, the head-mounted device defined in claim 1, and Aferzon further discloses on Fig. 1, wherein the metal frame comprises a metal bar (Frame 102 has a bar in eye frame 104) [Par 42], Fukumoto discloses on Fig. 1, the flexible printed circuit (strain gauge 12 on FPC 20) [Par 49], and Porter discloses on Fig. 2a-3b and 5, wherein the circuit is attached to the bar and is configured to measure deformation of the bar (flexure of frame F is sensed by strain gauge 52) [Par 49].
Re Claim 20, Porter discloses, on Fig. 4A-4B and 5, a head-mounted device (Fig. 4a: HMD 50), comprising: frame (Fig. 4a: unlabeled frame, previously labeled frame F in Fig 2a) [Par 44 ] having first (surface of nose bridge 34 where sensor 52 is attached) and second planar surfaces (surface of the hinge of HMD 50 that attaches near lens L1r where sensor 56 attaches) with respective first and second surface normal that are perpendicular to each other (normal of sensor 52 would be vertical and normal of sensor 56 would be horizontal) [Par 49-51], first strain gauge trace that is mounted on the first planar surface and second strain gauge trace that is mounted on the second planar surface (the first and second planar surfaces have strain gauges 52 and 56 respectively) [Par 49-51], and lens openings and lenses in the lens openings (openings for lenses L1L and L1R
But Porter does not explicitly disclose wherein the head mounted frame comprises a metal frame with a polymer attached to the metal frame, first and second strain being a printed circuit.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Fukumoto teaches, on Fig. 1, that it is desirable in strain gauges, to include a strain gauge having a flexible printed circuit (strain gauge 12 on FPC 20) [Par 49].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Porter with Fukumoto in order to provide, ease of replacement, as taught by Fukumoto [Par 49].
But Porter in view of Fukumoto, does not explicitly disclose, wherein the head mounted frame comprises a metal frame with a polymer attached to the metal frame.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Aferzon teaches, on Fig. 1, that it is desirable in head mounted displays to include wherein the head mounted frame (Frame 102) comprises a metal frame with a polymer attached to the metal frame (frame 102 can be a metal and polymer composite material) [Par 42].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Porter in view of Fukumoto, with Aferzon in order to provide for an eye frame, ear pieces, and holder, as taught by Aferzon [Par 42].
Re Claim 21, Porter in view of Fukumoto and Aferzon discloses, the head-mounted device defined in claim 20, and Porter further discloses on Fig. 4a-4b, further comprising at least one projector that provides an image (first and second projectors for left and right virtual images 22L and 22R) [Par 16 and 49-51], wherein at least one of the lenses has a waveguide that guides the image (waveguide component adjusted by actuators 60 in lens elements L1l and L1R) [Par 49].
Re Claim 22, Porter in view of Fukumoto and Aferzon, discloses, the head-mounted device defined in claim 20, and Fukumoto discloses on Fig. 1, wherein the strain gauge (strain gauge 12) comprises an amplifier (amplifier 36) and an analog-to-digital converter (physical quantity calculation unit 43 for physical strain, calculation would include digital conversion) [Par 43 and 74].
Claim(s) 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter in view of Fukumoto and Aferzon as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kelly (US 8576143 B1).
Re Claim 8, Porter in view of Fukumoto and Aferzon discloses, the head-mounted device defined in claim 7, and Porter further discloses on Fig. 5, wherein the central portion has first and second planar portions (left and right sides of top bar in frame of HMD 100 near sensor 52), and Fukumoto teaches on Fig. 1, a strain gauge having a flexible printed circuit (strain gauge 12 on FPC 20) [Par 49].
But Porter in view of Fukumoto and Aferzon does not explicitly disclose, wherein the circuit is bent around the central portion and attached to the first and second planar portions.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Kelly teaches, on Fig. 2, that it is desirable in head mounted displays to include wherein, the circuit (Flex sensor 115) is bent around the central portion (nose bridge 145) and attached to the first and second planar portions. (Fig. 2: flex sensor 115 is wrapped around central portion of metal frame and attached to first and second planar portions over left and right display 105A and 105B)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Porter in view of Fukumoto and Aferzon with Kelly in order to provide, the direction and magnitude of frame deformation, as taught by Kelly [Col 5, Lines 15-30].
Re Claim 9, Porter in view of Fukumoto, Aferzon, and Kelly discloses, the head-mounted device defined in claim 8, and Porter further discloses on Fig. 3a-3b, wherein the first and second planar portions are oriented perpendicular to each other (normal of sensor 52 would be vertical and normal of sensor 56 would be horizontal, thus the surfaces they reside on are perpendicular) [Par 49-51].
Re Claim 10, Porter in view of Fukumoto, Aferzon, and Kelly discloses, the head-mounted device defined in claim 9, and Kelly further discloses on Fig. 1-2, wherein the metal bar has first and second end portions (left and right upper display support 135A and 135B) , wherein the central portion is between the first and second end portions (nose bridge 145), and wherein the central portion is thicker in at least one cross-sectional dimension than the first and second end portions (nose bridge 15 is thicker in a vertical direction from the perspective of Fig. 1than 135A and 135B).
Re Claim 11, Porter in view of Fukumoto, Aferzon, and Kelly discloses, the head-mounted device defined in claim 9, and Porter further discloses on Fig. 5, wherein the bar has first and second end portions (frame portion above each of left and right pupil expanders 140R and 140l), wherein the central portion is between the first and second end portions (nose bridge 34 is between the portion of the frame above 140l and 140r), and wherein the central portion is thinner in at least one cross-sectional dimension than the first and second end portions (nose bridge 34 is thinner in both the vertical and horizontal direction than the frame component above 140l and 140r).
Claim(s) 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter in view of Aferzon.
R Claim 23, Porter discloses on Fig. 4a-4b and 5, a head-mounted device (Fig. 4a: HMD 50), comprising: a head-mounted frame (Fig. 4a: unlabeled frame, previously labeled frame F in Fig 2a) [Par 44 ] having an elongated internal frame that extends laterally across the head-mounted frame (See Fig. 5: where the frame extends across the top of lenses L1l and L1r) and, wherein the frame portion has lens openings (Fig. 5: frame has lens openings for lenses L1l and K1R); lenses in the lens openings (L1l and L1r); and a strain gauge having a flexible substrate that is attached to the elongated internal frame (sensor 52 and additional sensors 56 can be strain gauges and are attached the frame that flexes) [Par 49-50]
But Porter does not explicitly disclose wherein the head mounted frame comprises a metal frame with a polymer covering the metal frame.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Aferzon teaches, on Fig. 1, that it is desirable in head mounted displays to include wherein the head mounted frame (Frame 102) comprises a metal frame with a polymer attached to the metal frame (frame 102 can be a metal and polymer composite material) [Par 42].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Porter with Aferzon in order to provide for an eye frame, ear pieces, and holder, as taught by Aferzon [Par 42].
Re Claim 24, Porter in view of Aferzon discloses, the head-mounted device defined in claim 23, and Porter further discloses on Fig. 4a-4b, wherein the elongated metal internal frame has a central portion (Frame shown in Fig. 4a-4b has a front facing portion including hinges) with at least first (location of sensor 52) and second planar surfaces (location of sensor 56) oriented in different directions and wherein the flexible substrate is attached to the first and second planar surfaces (strain gauges 52 and 56 sense flexure in frame and hinges) [Par 49-51].
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter in view of Fukumoto and Aferzon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ziebart (US 20050155435 A1).
Re Claim 13, Porter in veiew of Fukumoto and Aferzon discloses, the head-mounted device defined in claim 1, and Porter further discloses on Fig. 2a and 5, wherein the strain gauge is configured to measure deformation of the metal frame ( flexure of frame F is sensed by strain gauge 52) [Par 49].
But Porter in view of Fukumoto and Aferzon does not disclose, the frame further comprising a first polymer portion that covers the strain gauge and a second polymer portion molded over at least part of the metal frame and over the first polymer portion.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Ziebart teaches, on Fig. 1 and 2, that it is desirable in strain sensors to include the frame (deformable body) further comprising a first polymer portion that covers the strain gauge and a second polymer portion molded over at least part of the metal frame and over the first polymer portion (multilayer polymer coating 16 fully covers strain gauge, and since it is multilayer there is a second portion over the frame and first portion or layer) [Par 32].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Porter in view of Fukumoto and Aferzon with Ziebart in order to provide a seal against the penetration of moisture, as taught by Ziebart [Par 32].
Claim(s) 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly (US 8576143 B1) in view of Fukumoto.
Re Claim 17, Kelly discloses on Fig. 1-2, A head-mounted device (HMD 100), comprising: a metal frame (fabricated of metal frame members) [Col 4, Lines 50-65]; a strain gauge (Flex sensor 115), wherein the circuit is wrapped at least partly around a central portion of the metal frame (Fig. 2: flex sensor 115 is wrapped around central portion of metal frame) ; polymer attached to the metal frame (“…molded plastics…on which the sensor is and control systems are disposed) [Col 4, Lines 50-65], wherein the polymer has lens openings; and lenses in the lens openings (openings and lenses of left and right displays 105A and 105B).
But Kelly does not explicitly disclose, a strain gauge having a flexible printed circuit with strain gauge traces
However, within the same field of endeavor, Fukumoto teaches, on Fig. 1, that it is desirable in strain gauges, to include a strain gauge having a flexible printed circuit (strain gauge 12 on FPC 20) [Par 49].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Porter with Fukumoto in order to provide, ease of replacement, as taught by Fukumoto [Par 49].
Re Claim 19, Kelly in view of Fukumoto discloses, the head-mounted device defined in Claim 17, and further Fukumoto discloses on Fig. 1, wherein the strain gauge (strain gauge 12) comprises an amplifier (amplifier 36) and an analog-to-digital converter (physical quantity calculation unit 43 for physical strain, calculation would include digital conversion) [Par 43 and 74].
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly in view of Fukumuto as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Porter.
Re Claim 18, Kelly in view of Fukumoto, discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 17.
But Kelly in view of Fukumoto does not explicitly disclose, at least one projector that provides an image, wherein at least one of the lenses has a waveguide that guides the image.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Porter teaches, on Fig. 4a-4b, that it is desirable in head mounted displays, to further disclose at least one projector that provides an image (first and second projectors for left and right virtual images 22L and 22R) [Par 16 and 49-51], wherein at least one of the lenses has a waveguide that guides the image (waveguide component adjusted by actuators 60 in lens elements L1l and L1R) [Par 49].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kelly in view of Fukumoto with Porter in order to provide, light path adjustment, as taught by Porter [Par 49].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jones (US 20180052501 A1) discloses a head mounted display.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)-272-2713. 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.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872