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.
The rejection of 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inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention, has been withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/08/2026 in regards to claims 17-22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kelly in view of Fukumoto fails to teach the amended limitations of claim 17. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points to Kelly who teaches, a first strain gauge (left side of Flex sensor 115), and second strain gauge (right side of 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) on first and second planar surfaces (See Fig. 1: display support 135A and support 135B respectively) of the metal frame at the central portion (Fig. 2 shows flex sensor 115 straddles central portion) [Col 2, Lines 40-55], wherein the first strain gauge traces are on the first planar surface (left side of sensor 115 is on support 135A), and wherein the second strain gauge traces are on the second planar surface (See Fig. 1: right side of sensor 115 is support 135B).
Applicant argues that Porter, Fukumoto, and Aferzon fail to teach the amended limitations of Claim 20. However, the Examiner has restated the rejection in further view of Kelly, and Kelly teaches, on Fig. 1-2, that it is desirable in spectacles with strain gauges to include, wherein the first planar surface (Fig. 1: Display support 134A) the first strain gauge traces (Fig. 2: left side of flex sensor 115) is mounted and the second planar surface (Fig. 1: support 135B) on which the second strain gauge traces (Fig. 2: Right side of sensor 115) is mounted are at a central portion (Sensor 115 is over the nose bride as seen in Fig. 1) of the metal frame between the lens openings (Fig. 1: sensor 115 is between left and right displays 105a and 105b)[Col 2, Lines 40-65].
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 measure the degree of deformation about the rotational flex axis, as taught by Kelly [Col 3, Lines 30-50].
Thus the rejection of Claims 17-22 is sustained.
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) 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), Aferzon (US 20190076013 A1), and Kelly (US 8576143 B1).
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, and wherein the first planar surface on which the first printed circuit with the first strain gauge traces is mounted and the second planar surface on which the second printed circuit with the second strain gauge traces is mounted are at a central portion of the metal frame between the lens openings.
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].
But Porter in view of Fukumoto and Aferzon still does not teach, wherein the first planar surface on which the first printed circuit with the first strain gauge traces is mounted and the second planar surface on which the second printed circuit with the second strain gauge traces is mounted are at a central portion of the metal frame between the lens openings.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Kelly teaches, on Fig. 1-2, that it is desirable in spectacles with strain gauges to include, wherein the first planar surface (Fig. 1: Display support 134A) the first strain gauge traces (Fig. 2: left side of flex sensor 115) is mounted and the second planar surface (Fig. 1: support 135B) on which the second strain gauge traces (Fig. 2: Right side of sensor 115) is mounted are at a central portion (Sensor 115 is over the nose bride as seen in Fig. 1) of the metal frame between the lens openings (Fig. 1: sensor 115 is between left and right displays 105a and 105b)[Col 2, Lines 40-65].
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 measure the degree of deformation about the rotational flex axis, as taught by Kelly [Col 3, Lines 30-50].
Re Claim 21, Porter in view of Fukumoto, Aferzon, and Kelly 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, Aferzon, and Kelly 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) 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly (US 8576143 B1) in view of Fukumoto (US-20190064226-A1).
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 first strain gauge (left side of Flex sensor 115), and second strain gauge (right side of 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) on first and second planar surfaces (See Fig. 1: display support 135A and support 135B respectively) of the metal frame at the central portion (Fig. 2 shows flex sensor 115 straddles central portion) [Col 2, Lines 40-55], wherein the first strain gauge traces are on the first planar surface (left side of sensor 115 is on support 135A), and wherein the second strain gauge traces are on the second planar surface (See Fig. 1: right side of sensor 115 is support 135B); 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 1-13, 15-16, and 23-25 are allowed.
Re Claim 1 and 23, the closest prior art of record are Porter (US 20200233213 A1) and Kelly (US 8576143 B1), who teach spectacles or glasses with strain gauges, but neither teaches protective polymer over the strain gauge.
Ziebart (US 20050155435 A1) teaches a layered protective polymer covering but neither Ziebart or the prior art as a whole teaches wherein, wherein the strain gauge is embedded in a protective polymer that prevents contact between the strain gauge and a polymer frame portion, or, wherein the head-mounted frame comprises 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights