DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to one of the four statutory class, apparatus and method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1 (as a representative example), we recognize that the limitations “receive data corresponding to the distances and the view, based on the distances and the view, determine a recommended component for use with a head-mountable device,” are abstract ideas, as they recite limitations that involve mental process. Similar rejections are made for other independent and dependent claims. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims additionally recite “a depth sensor configured to measure distances from the depth sensor to head features of a head, an image sensor configured to capture a view of a fitting device on the head, and a processor,” “an input device configured to provide a user interface for receiving an indication of a measurement of the head features or the fitting device,” “a display, wherein the processor is further configured to operate the display to provide the output,” and “the fitting device comprises fiducial markers, wherein the image sensor is configured to detect at least one of a color of the fiducial markers, a shape of the fiducial markers, or a distance between a pair of the fiducial markers,” are directed to data collection activity, recited at high level of generality, recitation of general-purpose computer and generic post-solution activity. The claims do not improve the functioning of any machines and do not improve other technology. At most, the claims are not improvement in the abstract idea of determining a recommended component of a head-mountable device. However, improved or new abstract idea is still an abstract idea, and not eligible under the 101. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claims additionally recite “a depth sensor configured to measure distances from the depth sensor to head features of a head, an image sensor configured to capture a view of a fitting device on the head, and a processor,” “an input device configured to provide a user interface for receiving an indication of a measurement of the head features or the fitting device,” “a display, wherein the processor is further configured to operate the display to provide the output,” and “the fitting device comprises fiducial markers, wherein the image sensor is configured to detect at least one of a color of the fiducial markers, a shape of the fiducial markers, or a distance between a pair of the fiducial markers,” are directed to data collection activity, recited at high level of generality, recitation of general-purpose computer and generic post-solution activity, that are well-understood, routine and conventional. As such, the claims do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-8 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs et al., US-PGPUB 2013/0318776 (hereinafter Jacobs) (cited by the Applicant) in view of Law, US-PGPUB 2021/0302750 (hereinafter Law).
Regarding Claim 1. Jacobs discloses an electronic device (Abstract) comprising:
a depth sensor configured to measure distances from the depth sensor to head features of a head (Paragraphs [0018]; [0030]; [0035]; [0038]; [0049]; Figs. 3 and 6)
an image sensor configured to capture a view of a fitting device on the head (Paragraphs [0031]; [0039]); and a processor configured to: receive data corresponding to the distances and the view, based on the distances and the view, determine a recommended component for use with a head-mountable device (Paragraphs [0030]-[0031], [0070]; Figs. 2, 8, 12, 16);
Jacobs does not explicitly discloses providing an output, the output comprising an indication of the recommended component.
Law discloses informing the user and recommending the appropriate size and stabilizing structure to provide the best fit (Abstract; Paragraph [0369], obviously informing the user of a mobile phone involves outputting the indication of the recommended component via phone display)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Law in Jacobs and provide an output, the output comprising an indication of the recommended component, so as to inform the user of the recommended component on a timely basis.
Regarding Claim 3. Jacobs discloses the distances comprise distance to an ear (Paragraph [0030]), the recommended component comprises a head engager having a shape corresponding to the distance to the ear (Figs. 9-11, 13-15)
Regarding Claim 4. Jacobs discloses an input device configured to provide a user interface for receiving an indication of a measurement of the head features or the fitting device (Fig. 7)
Regarding Claim 5. Jacobs discloses the fitting device comprises fiducial markers, wherein the image sensor is configured to detect at least one of a color of the fiducial markers, a shape of the fiducial markers, or a distance between a pair of the fiducial markers (Paragraph [0049])
Regarding Claim 6. Jacobs discloses a display, wherein the processor is further configured to operate the display to provide the output (Fig. 7)
Regarding Claim 7. Jacobs discloses while a fitting device is not worn, measuring, with one or more sensors of an electronic device, distances from the one or more sensors to head features, while the fitting device is worn, capturing, with the one or more sensors of the electronic device, a view of fiducial markers of the fitting device (Fig. 3: Paragraph [0049]), based on the distances and the view of the fiducial markers, determining a recommended component of a head-mountable device (Paragraphs [0030]-[0031]; Fig. 2)
Jacobs does not explicitly discloses providing an output, the output comprising an indication of the recommended component.
Law discloses informing the user and recommending the appropriate size and stabilizing structure to provide the best fit (Paragraph [0369], obviously informing the user of a mobile phone involves outputting the indication of the recommended component via phone display)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Law in Jacobs and provide an output, the output comprising an indication of the recommended component, so as to inform the user of the recommended component on a timely basis.
Regarding Claim 8. Jacobs discloses the one or more sensors comprises: a depth sensor for measuring the distances; and an image sensor for capturing the view (Paragraphs [0018]; [0030]-[0031]; [0035]; [0038]-[0039]; [0049]; Figs. 3 and 6).
Regarding Claim 11. Jacobs discloses the distances comprise distance to an ear (Paragraph [0030]), the recommended component comprises a head engager having a shape corresponding to the distance to the ear (Figs. 9-11, 13-15)
Regarding Claim 12. Jacobs discloses receiving, with an input device of the electronic device providing a user interface, an indication of a measurement of the head features or the fitting device (Fig. 7)
Regarding Claim 13. Jacobs discloses the fitting device comprises fiducial
markers, wherein the method further comprises comparing the view of the fiducial markers to an expected color of the fiducial markers, an expected shape of the fiducial markers, or an expected distance between a pair of the fiducial markers (Paragraph [0049]).
Regarding Claim 14. Jacobs discloses providing the output on a display of the electronic device (Fig. 7)
Claims 2 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs et al., US-PGPUB 2013/0318776 in view of Law, US-PGPUB 2021/0302750 as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Truex et al., US-PGPUB 2017/0173371 (hereinafter Truex)
Regarding Claims 2 and 9. Jacobs discloses the distances comprise: a distance to a forehead, a distance to a nose, and a distance to a cheek (Paragraph [0030], although, cheek is not explicitly disclosed, it would have been obvious to determine the distance to a cheek, as it is one of the facial features); and fit components, including noise piece, temple pads, forehead pads and other fit features (Paragraphs [0030]-[0031], [0070]; Figs. 2, 8, 12, 16),
The modified Jacobs does not explicitly disclose the recommended component comprises a face seal having a shape corresponding to the distance to the forehead, the distance to the nose, and the distance to the cheek.
Truex discloses fitting a customized face seal having a shape corresponding to the distance to the forehead, the distance to the nose, and the distance to the cheek (Paragraph [0026], Fig. 1A)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Truex in the modified Jacobs and have the recommended component comprises a face seal having a shape corresponding to the distance to the forehead, the distance to the nose, and the distance to the cheek, so as to properly fit the given user.
Regarding Claim 10. Jacobs discloses the distances comprise a distance to an eye (Paragraph [0030]).
The modified Jacobs does not disclose the recommended component comprises a face seal having a shape corresponding to the distance to the eye.
Truex discloses fitting a customized face seal having a shape corresponding to the distance to the eye. (Paragraph [0026], Fig. 1A)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Truex in the modified Jacobs and have the recommended component comprises a face seal having a shape corresponding to the distance to the eye, so as to properly fit users.
7. Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs et al., US-PGPUB 2013/0318776 in view of Law, US-PGPUB 2021/0302750, Poore et al., US-PGPUB 2019/0072772 (hereinafter Poore) and Mikhailov et al., US-PGPUB 2015/0261291 (hereinafter Mikhailov)
Regarding Claims 21-22. Jacobs discloses a depth sensor configured to measure distances from the depth sensor to head features of a head (Paragraphs [0018]; [0030]; [0035]; [0038]; [0049]; Figs. 3 and 6), an image sensor configured to capture, while a fitting device is worn on the head (Paragraphs [0031]; [0039]; Fig. 3), a view of multiple fiducial markers of the fitting device (Paragraph [0049]); one or more output devices (Fig. 7); and a processor configured to: receive depth data corresponding to the distances,
receive image data corresponding to the view (Paragraphs [0030]-[0031], [0070]; Figs. 2, 8, 12, 16);
Jacobs does not disclose a view of multiple band fiducial markers of a band of the fitting device, detect, in the image data, relative positions of the multiple band fiducial markers;
determine, based on the relative positions of the multiple band fiducial markers, a
tension parameter corresponding to the amount of tension applied to the band, determine, based on the depth data and the tension parameter, a recommended
component for use with a head-mountable device, the recommended component being selected from multiple components having different physical properties; and
provide, via the one or more output devices, an output comprising an indication of
the recommended component.
Mikhailov discloses a head-mounted device, including markers on the headband and adjustment of the headband changing a separation distance between at least two markers (Abstract; Figs. 4’s; Paragraphs [0010]-[0013]; Paragraph [0071]-[0073], [0078]-[0081])
Poore discloses a head-mounted device with a headband and an adjustment mechanism that is operable to change fit of the headband, including measuring tension of the headband (Paragraph [0047]; Abstract)
Law discloses informing the user and recommending the appropriate size and stabilizing structure to provide the best fit (Paragraph [0369], obviously informing the user of a mobile phone involves outputting the indication of the recommended component via phone display)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Mikhailov, Poore and Law in Jacobs and have a view of multiple band fiducial markers of a band of the fitting device, detect, in the image data, relative positions of the multiple band fiducial markers, determine, based on the relative positions of the multiple band fiducial markers, a tension parameter corresponding to the amount of tension applied to the band, determine, based on the depth data and the tension parameter, a recommended component for use with a head-mountable device, the recommended component being selected from multiple components having different physical properties; and provide, via the one or more output devices, an output comprising an indication of the recommended component (Claim 22. determine the tension parameter based on a distance between a pair of the multiple band fiducial markers), so as to properly fit users.
Claims 23 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs et al., US-PGPUB 2013/0318776 in view of Law, US-PGPUB 2021/0302750, Poore, US-PGPUB 2019/0072772 and Mikhailov, US-PGPUB 2015/0261291 as applied to Claim 21 above, and further in view of Petersen et al., US-PGPUB 2020/0218075 (hereinafter Petersen)
Regarding Claim 23. Jacobs discloses the image sensor is configured to capture, in the view, fiducial markers (Fig. 6)
The modified Jacobs does not disclose the fitting device further comprises a deflection arm extending from a frame of the fitting device, the deflection arm being biased to an extended configuration and being configured to move to a deflected configuration when the deflection arm abuts the head while the fitting device is worn on the head; and the image sensor is further configured to capture, in the view, a deflection arm fiducial marker of the deflection arm.
Petersen discloses the head mounted display, including a deflection arm extending from a frame of the fitting device, the deflection arm being biased to an extended configuration and being configured to move to a deflected configuration when the deflection arm abuts the head while the fitting device is worn on the head, and the image sensor is further configured to capture, in the view, a deflection arm fiducial marker of the deflection arm (Abstract; Paragraphs [0006]-[0026]; [0034]-[0036]; [0041]; claim 7)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Petersen in the modified Jacobs and have the fitting device further comprises a deflection arm extending from a frame of the fitting device, the deflection arm being biased to an extended configuration and being configured to move to a deflected configuration when the deflection arm abuts the head while the fitting device is worn on the head, and the image sensor is further configured to capture, in the view, a deflection arm fiducial marker of the deflection arm, so as to use in simple calibration and proper fitting of users, particularly given that use of fiducial markers on deflection arm is also known.
Regarding Claim 25. Jacobs discloses the image sensor is configured to capture, in the view, fiducial markers (Fig. 6).
The modified Jacobs does not disclose the fitting device comprises a lens coupled to a frame of the fitting device, the lens comprising a lens fiducial marker, and
the image sensor is further configured to capture, in the view, the lens fiducial marker.
Petersen discloses the fitting device comprises a lens coupled to a frame of the fitting device, the lens comprising a lens fiducial marker, and the image sensor is further configured to capture, in the view, the lens fiducial marker (Abstract, markers on lens; Paragraphs [0006]-[0026]; [0034]-[0036]; [0041]; claim 7)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Petersen in the modified Jacobs and have the fitting device comprises a lens coupled to a frame of the fitting device, the lens comprising a lens fiducial marker, and the image sensor is further configured to capture, in the view, the lens fiducial marker, so as to use in simple calibration and proper fitting of users.
Regarding Claim 26. The modified Jacobs does not disclose determining, based on a position of the lens fiducial marker in the image data, an eye location of the head, and wherein the recommended component is determined based further on the eye location.
Jacobs discloses determining, based on a position of the fiducial marker in the image data, an eye location of the head, and wherein the recommended component is determined based further on the eye location (Figs. 2-3, 8, 12).
Law discloses informing the user and recommending the appropriate size and stabilizing structure to provide the best fit (Paragraph [0369], obviously informing the user of a mobile phone involves outputting the indication of the recommended component via phone display)
Petersen discloses position of the lens fiducial marker in the image data, an eye location of the head (Abstract, markers on lens; Paragraphs [0006]-[0026]; [0034]-[0036]; [0041]; claim 7).
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Petersen, Law in the modified Jacobs and determine, based on a position of the lens fiducial marker in the image data, an eye location of the head, and wherein the recommended component is determined based further on the eye location, so as to properly fit users.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 24. The prior arts do not disclose or suggest a combination, including detect, in the image data, a position of the deflection arm fiducial marker relative to a frame fiducial marker of the fitting device, and determine, based on the position of the deflection arm fiducial marker relative to the frame fiducial marker, a compression parameter corresponding to compression of the deflection arm against the head.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Law et al., US-PGPUB 2022/0026724
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights