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 Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, “the left image” and “the right image” are recited prior to “a left image” and “a right image” being recited, so whether these are the same images is unclear. For examination, it will be assumed they are the same.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(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, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Churin et al. (US 20230239455 A1, hereafter Churin).
Regarding claim 1, Churin teaches a head-mounted wearable device, including:
a frame (Figs. 1 and 6, [0020], [0038], where the HMD device in the form of a pair of glasses), including:
a projection system (502/504) configured to emit internal radiation to a left waveguide and a right waveguide, (Fig. 5, [0033]-[0034], where image sources 502 and 504 each emit light to a first image projection waveguide 514 and a second image projection waveguide 516, respectively);
the left waveguide (514), including a left outcoupler (520) configured to couple left radiation from the left waveguide to produce a first portion of outcoupled radiation, the first portion of the outcoupled radiation representing a left image (Fig. 5, [0033]-[0034], where the image is a first calibration image), the right waveguide (516) including a right outcoupler (526) configured to couple right radiation from the right waveguide to produce a second portion of the outcoupled radiation, the second portion of the outcoupled radiation representing a right image (Fig. 5, [0033]-[0034], where the image is a second calibration image);
a coupling element (510) coupled to the left outcoupler and the right outcoupler, the coupling element configured to combine the first portion of the outcoupled radiation and the second portion of the outcoupled radiation to produce an overlay image (Fig. 5, [0033]-[0036], where the waveguide combiner 510 outputs both calibration images to the sensor);
a sensor element (512) coupled to the coupling element, the sensor element configured to determine a degree of misalignment of the left image and the right image based on a difference between the overlay image and an initial image, the initial image being a combination of a left image at an initial calibration and a right image at the initial calibration (Fig. 5, [0035]-[0036], where the boresight sensor 512 detects optical misalignment based on the current first and second calibration images compared to desired alignment; [0027], [0032], where the deviation can be determined with respect to an original factory calibration).
Regarding claim 2, Churin teaches the head-mounted wearable device as in claim 1, wherein the frame further includes a nose bridge, and the sensor element is located in an interior of the nose bridge (Figs. 5 and 6, [0039], [0066], where waveguide combiner 510 and boresight sensor 512 are located within the nose bridge of the glasses).
Regarding claim 4, Churin teaches the head-mounted wearable device as in claim 1, wherein the projection system is further configured to perform an offset of a field of view of the left image and/or the right image to produce an aligned image ([0027], where the left and/or right image is updated or offset to account for a disparity between the calibration images).
Regarding claim 6, Churin teaches the head-mounted wearable device as in claim 1, further comprising an angled coupler coupled to the left outcoupler, the angled coupler being configured to couple the first portion of the outcoupled radiation into the coupling element from the left waveguide at a range of angles (Fig. 8, [0046]-[0047], where the couplers are angled such that light is still transmitted into the waveguide combiner 804 at a variety of angles 802, 802A, etc.).
Regarding claim 8, Churin teaches a method, comprising:
receiving an initial image, the initial image being a combination of a left image at an initial calibration and a right image at the initial calibration (Fig. 5, [0027], [0033]-[0034], where the calibration images have an initialized expected location; [0027], [0032], where the deviation can be determined with respect to an original factory calibration);
causing internally radiation to be emitted by a projection system (502/504) into a left waveguide and a right waveguide within a frame of a head-mounted wearable device (Fig. 5, [0033]-[0034], where image sources 502 and 504 each emit light to a first image projection waveguide 514 and a second image projection waveguide 516, respectively), the left waveguide including a left outcoupler (520) configured to couple left radiation in the left waveguide out of the left waveguide to produce a first portion of outcoupled radiation, the first portion of the outcoupled radiation representing a left image (Fig. 5, [0033]-[0034], where the image is a first calibration image), the right waveguide including a right outcoupler (526) configured to couple right radiation in the right waveguide out of the right waveguide to produce a second portion of the outcoupled radiation, the second portion of the outcoupled radiation representing a right image (Fig. 5, [0033]-[0034], where the image is a second calibration image); and
determining, via a sensor element (512), a degree of misalignment of the left image and the right image based on a difference between an overlay image formed by a coupling element (510) and the initial image (Fig. 5, [0035]-[0036], where the boresight sensor 512 detects optical misalignment based on the current first and second calibration images compared to desired alignment), the coupling element coupled to the left outcoupler and the right outcoupler, the coupling element configured to combine the left image and the right image to produce the overlay image (Fig. 5, [0033]-[0036], where the waveguide combiner 510 outputs both calibration images to the sensor).
Regarding claim 9, Churin teaches the method as in claim 8, wherein the frame further includes a nose bridge, and the sensor element is located in an interior of the nose bridge (Figs. 5 and 6, [0039], [0066], where waveguide combiner 510 and boresight sensor 512 are located within the nose bridge of the glasses).
Regarding claim 11, Churin teaches the method as in claim 8, further comprising performing an offset of a field of view of the left image and/or the right image to produce an aligned image ([0027], where the left and/or right image is updated or offset to account for a disparity between the calibration images).
Regarding claim 13, Churin teaches the method as in claim 8, further comprising coupling the first portion of the outcoupled radiation into the coupling element from the left waveguide at a range of angles (Fig. 8, [0046]-[0047], where the couplers are angled such that light is still transmitted into the waveguide combiner 804 at a variety of angles 802, 802A, etc.).
Regarding claim 15, Churin teaches a computer program product comprising a nontransitory storage medium, the computer program product including code that, when executed by processing circuitry, causes the processing circuitry to perform a method, the method comprising:
receiving an initial image, the initial image being a combination of a left image at an initial calibration and a right image at the initial calibration (Fig. 5, [0027], [0033]-[0034], where the calibration images have an initialized expected location);
causing internal radiation to be emitted by a projection system (502/504) into a left waveguide and a right waveguide within a frame of a head-mounted wearable device (Fig. 5, [0033]-[0034], where image sources 502 and 504 each emit light to a first image projection waveguide 514 and a second image projection waveguide 516, respectively), the left waveguide including a left outcoupler (520) configured to couple left radiation in the left waveguide out of the left waveguide to produce a first portion of outcoupled radiation, the first portion of the outcoupled radiation representing a left image (Fig. 5, [0033]-[0034], where the image is a first calibration image), the right waveguide including a right outcoupler (526) configured to couple right radiation in the right waveguide out of the right waveguide to produce a second portion of the outcoupled radiation, the second portion of the outcoupled radiation representing a right image (Fig. 5, [0033]-[0034], where the image is a second calibration image); and
determining, via a sensor element (512), a degree of misalignment of the left image and the right image based on a difference between an overlay image formed by a coupling element (510) and the initial image (Fig. 5, [0035]-[0036], where the boresight sensor 512 detects optical misalignment based on the current first and second calibration images compared to desired alignment), the coupling element coupled to the left outcoupler and the right outcoupler, the coupling element configured to combine the left image and the right image to produce the overlay image (Fig. 5, [0033]-[0036], where the waveguide combiner 510 outputs both calibration images to the sensor).
Regarding claim 16, Churin teaches the computer program product as in claim 15, wherein the frame further includes a nose bridge, and the sensor element is located in an interior of the nose bridge (Figs. 5 and 6, [0039], [0066], where waveguide combiner 510 and boresight sensor 512 are located within the nose bridge of the glasses).
Regarding claim 18, Churin teaches the computer program product as in claim 15, wherein the method further comprises performing an offset of a field of view of the left image and/or the right image to produce an aligned image ([0027], where the left and/or right image is updated or offset to account for a disparity between the calibration images).
Regarding claim 20, Churin teaches the computer program product as in claim 15, wherein the method further comprises coupling the first portion of the outcoupled radiation into the coupling element from the left waveguide at a range of angles (Fig. 8, [0046]-[0047], where the couplers are angled such that light is still transmitted into the waveguide combiner 804 at a variety of angles 802, 802A, etc.).
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.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Churin et al. (US 20230239455 A1, hereafter Churin) in view of DeLapp et al. (US 12085724 B1, hereafter DeLapp).
Regarding claim 3, Churin would show the head-mountable wearable device as in claim 1. But, Churin does not explicitly teach the device wherein the left image results from a left impulse and the right image results from a right impulse; and wherein the degree of misalignment of the left image and the right image is based on a difference between a response to the left impulse and the right impulse. However, this was well known in the art as evidenced by DeLapp (Figs. 4-6, Col. 10 line 28 to Col. 11 line 27, where calibration pattern images are compared on both left and right sides, the calibration pattern image characterized by a corresponding point spread function and each calibration pattern image is based around dots, i.e., from a pointwise impulse). Both Churin and DeLapp would teach a head-mounted device using calibration images to test alignment. Churin is silent with respect to the use of an impulse in the calibration image. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the alignment detection of Churin using the method of DeLapp and such an implementation would yield a predictable result.
Regarding claim 10, Churin would show the method as in claim 8. But, Churin does not explicitly teach the method wherein the left image results from a left impulse and the right image results from a right impulse; and wherein the degree of misalignment of the left image and the right image is based on a difference between a response to the left impulse and the right impulse. However, this was well known in the art as evidenced by DeLapp (Figs. 4-6, Col. 10 line 28 to Col. 11 line 27, where calibration pattern images are compared on both left and right sides, the calibration pattern image characterized by a corresponding point spread function and each calibration pattern image is based around dots, i.e., from a pointwise impulse). Both Churin and DeLapp would teach a head-mounted device using calibration images to test alignment. Churin is silent with respect to the use of an impulse in the calibration image. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the alignment detection of Churin using the method of DeLapp and such an implementation would yield a predictable result.
Regarding claim 17, Churin would show the computer program product as in claim 15. But, Churin does not explicitly teach the product wherein the left image results from a left impulse and the right image results from a right impulse; and wherein the degree of misalignment of the left image and the right image is based on a difference between a response to the left impulse and the right impulse. However, this was well known in the art as evidenced by DeLapp (Figs. 4-6, Col. 10 line 28 to Col. 11 line 27, where calibration pattern images are compared on both left and right sides, the calibration pattern image characterized by a corresponding point spread function and each calibration pattern image is based around dots, i.e., from a pointwise impulse). Both Churin and DeLapp would teach a head-mounted device using calibration images to test alignment. Churin is silent with respect to the use of an impulse in the calibration image. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the alignment detection of Churin using the method of DeLapp and such an implementation would yield a predictable result.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Churin et al. (US 20230239455 A1, hereafter Churin) in view of Li (US 20170003764 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Churin would show the head-mounted wearable device as in claim 4. But, Churin does not explicitly teach the device wherein the offset of the field of view is performed by a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) loop of the sensor element. However, this was well known in the art as evidenced by Li (Figs. 17-19, [0107]-[0108], where a PID feedback loop is used to determine headset position and determine angle or scaling errors). Both Churin and Li teach head-mounted devices. Li teaches a virtual reality system wherein a PID feedback loop is used to update the position of a VR headset. Churin teaches a pair of AR glasses where an offset is determined to correct misalignment between left and right images. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feedback method of Li into the calibration method of Churin so as to ensure all position vectors are applied (Churin [0107]-[0108]).
Regarding claim 12, Churin would show the method as in claim 11. But, Churin does not explicitly teach the method wherein the offset of the field of view is performed by a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) loop. However, this was well known in the art as evidenced by Li (Figs. 17-19, [0107]-[0108], where a PID feedback loop is used to determine headset position and determine angle or scaling errors). Both Churin and Li teach head-mounted devices. Li teaches a virtual reality system wherein a PID feedback loop is used to update the position of a VR headset. Churin teaches a pair of AR glasses where an offset is determined to correct misalignment between left and right images. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feedback method of Li into the calibration method of Churin so as to ensure all position vectors are applied (Churin [0107]-[0108]).
Regarding claim 19, Churin would show the computer program product of claim 18. But, Churin does not explicitly teach the computer program product wherein the offset of the field of view is performed by a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) loop. However, this was well known in the art as evidenced by Li (Figs. 17-19, [0107]-[0108], where a PID feedback loop is used to determine headset position and determine angle or scaling errors). Both Churin and Li teach head-mounted devices. Li teaches a virtual reality system wherein a PID feedback loop is used to update the position of a VR headset. Churin teaches a pair of AR glasses where an offset is determined to correct misalignment between left and right images. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feedback method of Li into the calibration method of Churin so as to ensure all position vectors are applied (Churin [0107]-[0108]).
Claims 7, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Churin et al. (US 20230239455 A1, hereafter Churin) in view of Brin et al. (US 20130038510 A1, hereafter Brin).
Regarding claim 7, Churin would show the head-mounted wearable device as in claim 1. But, Churin does not explicitly teach the device wherein the head-mounted wearable device is configured to power off in response to the degree of misalignment being greater than a threshold. However, this was well known in the art as evidenced by Brin ([0026], where the display powers off in response to a threshold degree of deformation and corresponding misalignment). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Brin’s power off method into the device of Churin so as to prevent user disorientation (Brin [0026]).
Regarding claim 14, Churin would show the method as in claim 8. But, Churin does not explicitly teach the method further comprising: performing a power off operation in response to the degree of misalignment being greater than a threshold. However, this was well known in the art as evidenced by Brin ([0026], where the display powers off in response to a threshold degree of deformation and corresponding misalignment). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Brin’s power off method into the method of Churin so as to prevent user disorientation (Brin [0026]).
Regarding claim 21, Churin would show the computer program product as in claim 15. But, Churin does not explicitly teach the computer program product wherein the method further comprises: performing a power off operation in response to the degree of misalignment being greater than a threshold. However, this was well known in the art as evidenced by Brin ([0026], where the display powers off in response to a threshold degree of deformation and corresponding misalignment). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Brin’s power off method into the method of Churin so as to prevent user disorientation (Brin [0026]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts on pages 9 and 10 of Applicant’s arguments/remarks that the Churin reference “does not teach or suggest at least ‘the sensor element configured to determine a degree of misalignment of the left and the right image based on a difference between the overlay image and an initial image, the initial image being a combination of a left image at an initial calibration and a right image at an initial calibration,” further stating that while Churin may teach a detection of misalignment compared to an original factory calibration, but does not teach “a stored aggregate of two physical baseline images – a left image at the initial calibration and a right image at the initial calibration – specifically produced at the factory.” This “aggregate of two physical baseline images” is the ordinary combination of left and right images already taught in Churin (Fig. 5, [0033]-[0036]). Applicant’s suggestion that the factory calibration image is somehow generated without combining left and right images is unnecessary when Churin provides explicit teachings on how combined overlay images are formed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PETER D MCLOONE whose telephone number is (571)272-4631. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 5712727764. 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.
/PETER D MCLOONE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights