DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 9, and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1-4, 7, 9, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Ogawa et al (US 12,169,929) in view of Trutna (US 9,904,054).
[claim 1]
In regard to Claim 1, Ogawa et al discloses a non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium storing program code executable by a processor to perform processing comprising:
detecting facial movement of a wearer of a head-mountable display (HMD) by detecting movement of a gasket of the HMD positioned against a face of the wearer (Figure 4 and described in Column 7 Lines 1-24); and identifying a facial expression of the wearer based on the detected facial movement (Figure 4 Lines 1-35); however, fails to disclose HMD positioned against a face of the wearer using a sensor coupled to the gasket and identifying a facial expression of the wearer based on the detected facial movement.
Trutna et al discloses a headset wherein facial positioning is determined based on the HMD positioned against a face of the wearer using a sensor coupled to the gasket (Figure 3 shows the sensors 165 that are attached to the liner/gasket and described in Column 6 Lines 3-57 describing the sensor being coupled to the liner (being applied as the gasket)). Furthermore, Trutna discloses the identification of the facial expressions based on the detected facial movement (Figure 4 and Column 3 Lines 33-50 and Column 6 Lines 35-60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the HMD as disclosed by Ogawa and further modify the system to include facial movement detection techniques, as taught by Trunta, in order to provide an additional mechanism for detecting and interpreting facial movement of a wearer without disrupting the external view of the wearer.
[claim 2]
In regard to Claim 2, Ogawa et al discloses a non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium wherein the processing further comprises:
performing an action related to the wearer of the HMD based on the identified facial expression of the wearer (Column 8 Lines 10-57).
[claim 3]
In regard to Claim 3, Ogawa discloses a non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium of wherein detecting the movement of the gasket of the HMD using the
[claim 4]
In regard to Claim 4, Ogawa discloses a non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium of wherein detecting the movement of the gasket of the HMD using the plurality of resistive or magnetic sensors further comprises: detecting axial movement of the gasket perpendicular to the external surface of the gasket in contact with the face of the wearer (Figure 9 and described in Column 13 Lines 35-67).
[claim 7]
In regard to Claim 7, Ogawa discloses a non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium of wherein the processing further comprises:
receiving a sensor value from the
determining whether the HMD is properly fitted to the wearer within a threshold by comparing the sensor value to baseline sensor value before the wearer put on the HMD (Column 19 Lines 30-67).
[claim 9]
In regard to Claim 1, Ogawa et al discloses a non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium storing program code executable by a processor to perform processing comprising:
detecting facial movement of a wearer of a head-mountable display (HMD) by detecting movement of a gasket of the HMD positioned against a face of the wearer (Figure 4 and described in Column 7 Lines 1-24); and identifying a facial expression of the wearer based on the detected facial movement (Figure 4 Lines 1-35); however, fails to disclose HMD positioned against a face of the wearer using a sensor coupled to the gasket wherein each sensor of the plurality of sensors is a magnetic or a resistive sensor and identifying a facial expression of the wearer based on the detected facial movement.
Trutna et al discloses a headset wherein facial positioning is determined based on the HMD positioned against a face of the wearer using a sensor coupled to the gasket (Figure 3 shows the sensors 165 that are attached to the liner/gasket and described in Column 6 Lines 3-57 describing the sensor being coupled to the liner (being applied as the gasket)). Furthermore, Trutna discloses the identification of the facial expressions based on the detected facial movement (Figure 4 and Column 3 Lines 33-50 and Column 6 Lines 35-60). Additionally, Trunta discloses the use of geomagnetic sensor as part of the HDM orientation sensing system (Column 7 Lines 1-14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the HMD as disclosed by Ogawa and further modify the system to include facial movement detection techniques with sensors coupled to the gasket, as taught by Trunta, in order to provide an additional mechanism for detecting and interpreting facial movement of a wearer without disrupting the external view of the wearer.
[claim 12]
In regard to Claim 12, Ogawa discloses a head-mountable display (HMD) comprising:a gasket positionable against a face of a wearer; and a plurality of resistive or magnetic sensors within the gasket to detect movement of the gasket responsive to facial movement of the wearer while the wearer is exhibiting a facial expression (Figure 9 and described in Column 13 Lines 35-67)..
[claim 13]
In regard to Claim 13, Ogawa discloses the HMD of claim 12, further comprising: circuitry to identify the facial expression of the wearer based on the detected movement of the gasket (Figure 9 and described in Column 13 Lines 35-67).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5,6,8,10,11,14, and 15 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. The prior art of record fails to discloses “receiving sensor values from the resistive strain gauge sensors corresponding to physical strain on the gasket as the wearer is currently exhibiting the facial expression as compared to baseline sensor values corresponding to the physical strain on the gasket when the wearer is exhibiting a relaxed neutral facial expression, wherein the facial expression of the wearer is determined based on the received sensor values.”
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 JAMIE JO ATALA whose telephone number is (571)272-7384. The examiner can normally be reached 830am-500pm M-TH.
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, please reach out to Dave Czkeaj 571-272-7327. 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.
/JAMIE J ATALA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights