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 § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 13- 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodges (US 2016/0149426) in view of Lyons (US 2015/0234189).
Claim 1: Hodges discloses a system comprising: a main unit (108) including a display (120); a first controller (104) configured for removable attachment to a first side surface of the main unit and providing operation inputs to the main unit when the first controller is detached from the main unit; a second controller (104) configured for removable attachment to a second side surface of the main unit opposite the first side surface and providing operation inputs to the main unit when the second controller is detached from the main unit (Figs. 1-3, ¶ 18-31, ¶ 18-21 – operation inputs are provided to the main unit when the first and second controllers are attached to the main unit, ¶ 31 – when the first and second controllers are not attached to the main unit that can provide operation inputs to the main unit).
Hodges teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting a head-mounted device accessory to which the main unit is removably attachable when the first controller and the second controller are detached. Hodges teaches that the main unit can be smartphones, tablet computers, portable game consoles etc (¶ 16, 18-19, 25 (varying sizes of the main unit), 88) and that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 98). An analogous art of Lyons teaches a system including a head-mounted device accessory to which a main unit (¶ 75 – the main unit refers to mobile devices such as smartphones, tablet computers, etc) is removably attachable e.g. the head-mounted device only accommodates the main unit (Figs. 1, 4a-b, ¶ 73-75, 76, 79-81). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hodges to include the head-mounted device accessory of Lyons to provide an ergonomic and user-friendly MHMD system that can leverage the sophistication and capabilities of current mobile computing devices (Lyons - ¶ 8, 73-74). Such a modification provides a means of a user to experience and control virtual reality, augmented reality, and stereoscopic experiences such as 3D/360 degree games (Lyons - ¶ 3).
The above modification allows the main unit of Hodges to be removably attached within the head-mounted device accessory of Lyons when the first and second controllers are not attached.
Claim 13: Hodges discloses a system comprising: a main unit (108) including a display (120); a first controller (104) configured for removable attachment to a first side surface of the main unit and providing operation inputs to the main unit when the first controller is detached from the main unit; a second controller (104) configured for removable attachment to a second side surface of the main unit opposite the first side surface and providing operation inputs to the main unit when the second controller is detached from the main unit (Figs. 1-3, ¶ 18-31, ¶ 18-21 – operation inputs are provided to the main unit when the first and second controllers are attached to the main unit, ¶ 31 – when the first and second controllers are not attached to the main unit that can provide operation inputs to the main unit).
Hodges teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting a head-mount device accessory configured for mounting on a head of a user and including a housing having a space therein configured to removably accommodate the main unit when the first controller and the second controller are detached. Hodges teaches that the main unit can be smartphones, tablet computers, portable game consoles etc (¶ 16, 18-19, 25 (varying sizes of the main unit), 88) and that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 98). An analogous art of Lyons teaches a system including a head-mounted device accessory to which a main unit (¶ 75 – the main unit refers to mobile devices such as smartphones, tablet computers, etc) is removably attachable e.g. the head-mounted device only accommodates the main unit (Figs. 1, 4a-b, ¶ 73-75, 76, 79-81). Lyons teaches the head-mounted device accessory configured for mounting on a head of the user and including a housing having a space/slot (18) therein configured to removably accommodate only the main unit (Lyons - Figs. 1, 4a-b, ¶ 73-75, 76-81). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hodges to include the head-mounted device accessory of Lyons to provide an ergonomic and user-friendly MHMD system that can leverage the sophistication and capabilities of current mobile computing devices (Lyons - ¶ 8, 73-74). Such a modification provides a means of a user to experience and control virtual reality, augmented reality, and stereoscopic experiences such as 3D/360 degree games (Lyons - ¶ 3).
The above modification allows the main unit of Hodges to be removably attached/accommodate within the head-mounted device accessory of Lyons when the first and second controllers are not attached or detached.
Claim 2: Hodges in view of Lyons teaches wherein the head-mounted device accessory includes a slot (18) into which the main unit is insertable from above (Lyons - Figs. 1, 4a-b, ¶ 73-75, 76, 79-81).
Claims 3 and 15: Hodges in view of Lyons teaches wherein the head-mounted device accessory is configured to cover the first and second side surfaces of the main unit when the main unit is attached/accommodated in the space/slot of the head-mounted device accessory via the housing’s respective first and second walls of the space/slot that face the first and second side surfaces of the main unit (Lyons - Figs. 1, 4a-b, ¶ 73-75, 76, 79-81).
Claims 4 and 14: Hodges in view of Lyons teaches wherein the head-mounted device accessory includes: a housing having a slot/space on or within an upper open portion thereof configured to receive the main unit (Lyons - Figs. 1, 4a-b, ¶ 73-75, 76, 79-81); and a mounting mechanism (40) configured to mount the head-mounted device accessory to a head of a user (Lyons - ¶ 77-79).
Claim 5: Hodges in view of Lyons teaches wherein the mounting mechanism comprises a belt (strap (40))(Lyons - ¶ 77-79).
Claim 6: Hodges in view of Lyons teaches wherein the housing is configured to cover the first and second side surfaces of the main unit when the main unit is received in the slot of the housing (Lyons - Figs. 1, 4a-b, ¶ 73-75, 76, 79-81).
Claims 7 and 16: Hodges in view of Lyons teaches wherein the head-mounted device accessory includes a lens disposed on a front-side of the display of the main unit when the main unit is attached to the head-mounted device accessory (Lyons – Figs. 1, 5-6, ¶ 76, 79, 84-86).
Claims 8 and 17: Hodges teaches the system further comprising at least one sensor (318) configured to sense a motion and/or orientation of the first controller and a motion and/or orientation of the second controller (Fig. 3, ¶ 21, 50-51).
Claims 9 and 18: Hodges in view of Lyons teaches wherein the head-mounted device accessory is configured so that the display is viewable by a user when the main unit is attached to the head-mounted device accessory and the head-mounted device accessory is mounted on a head of the user (Lyons – Figs. 1, 5-6, ¶ 76, 79, 84-86).
Claims 10 and 19: In addition to the above, Lyons teaches at least one sensor configured to sense motion and/or orientation when the main unit is attached to the head-mounted device accessory and the head-mounted device accessory is mounted on a head of a user (see above, Lyons - ¶ 78). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hodges in view of Lyons to include the at least one sensor of Lyons because such a modification would provide an ergonomic and user-friendly MHMD system that can leverage the sophistication and capabilities of current mobile computing devices (Lyons - ¶ 8, 73-74). Such a modification provides a means of a user to experience and control virtual reality, augmented reality, and stereoscopic experiences such as 3D/360 degree games (Lyons - ¶ 3).
Claims 11 and 20: Lyons teaches wherein one or more of the at least one sensor is included in the main unit (¶ 78),
Claim(s) 12 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodges (US 2016/0149426) in view of Lyons (US 2015/0234189), and in further view of Zalewski (US 2015/0348327).
Claims 12 and 21: Hodges in view of Lyons teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein one or more of the at least one sensor is included in the head-mounted device accessory. At least Hodges teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above). Hodges in view of Lyons teaches at least one sensor to sense the motion and/or orientation of the main unit when it is attached to the head-mounted device accessory and the head-mounted device accessory is mounted on a head of a user (see above). An analogous art of Zalewski teaches at least one sensor included in a head-mounted device accessory to sense the motion and/or orientation of a main unit when it is attached to the head-mounted device accessory and the head-mounted device accessory is mounted on a head of a user (¶ 46, 57, 78, 98, 127, emphasis on ¶ 98, 127). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hodges in view of Lyons with the sensor located within the head-mounted device accessory as taught by Zalewski because such a modification would have yield predictable results, namely, a means of determining the motion and/or orientation of the main unit when it is attached to the head-mounted device accessory and the head-mounted device accessory is mounted on the head of the user in which at least Hodges in view of Lyons is intended (see above with respect to Hodges in view of Lyons). Such a modification provides an immersive virtual reality environment (Zalewski - ¶ 10)
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodges (US 2016/0149426) in view of Lan (US 2012/0058821), and in further view of Lyons (US 2015/0234189).
Claim 22: Hodges discloses a system comprising: a main unit (108) including a display (120), wherein first and second controllers (104) are removably attachable, wherein the system is operable in a first mode in which the first and second controllers are attached to the main unit and provide operation inputs to the main unit and in a second mode in which the first and second controllers are detached from the main unit and provide operation inputs to the main unit via a wireless connection (Figs. 1-3, ¶ 18-31, ¶ 18-21 – operation inputs are provided to the main unit when the first and second controllers are attached to the main unit, ¶ 31 – when the first and second controllers are not attached to the main unit that can provide operation inputs to the main unit).
Hodges teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting the system when in the first mode the first and second controllers providing inputs to the main unit via a wired connection. Hodges at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the claimed invention (see above). Furthermore, an analogous art of Lan teaches a system that operates in a first and second mode, wherein in the first mode first and second controllers are attached to the main unit and provide corresponding operation inputs to the main unit via a wired connection and in the second mode the first and second controllers are detached from the main unit and provide corresponding operation inputs to the main unit via a wireless connection (Figs. 1-3 and 5, ¶ 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified at least the first mode of the system of Hodges such that operation inputs are provide to the main unit from the first and second controllers via a wired connection because such a modification would of yielded predictable results, namely, a means of providing operation inputs from the first and/or second controllers to the main unit while attached thereto in which Hodges is intended (see above). Such a modification would have been considered mere routine to one of ordinary skill in the art in terms of providing a communications means between controllers and a main game unit.
Hodges in view of Lan teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting a head-mount device accessory to which the main unit is removably attachable when the first and second controllers are detached from the main unit. Hodges teaches that the main unit can be smartphones, tablet computers, portable game consoles etc (¶ 16, 18-19, 25 (varying sizes of the main unit), 88) and that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 98). An analogous art of Lyons teaches a system including a head-mounted device accessory to which a main unit (¶ 75 – the main unit refers to mobile devices such as smartphones, tablet computers, etc) is removably attachable e.g. the head-mounted device only accommodates the main unit (Figs. 1, 4a-b, ¶ 73-75, 76, 79-81). Lyons teaches the head-mounted device accessory configured for mounting on a head of the user and including a housing having a space/slot (18) therein configured to removably accommodate only the main unit (Lyons - Figs. 1, 4a-b, ¶ 73-75, 76-81). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hodges to include the head-mounted device accessory of Lyons to provide an ergonomic and user-friendly MHMD system that can leverage the sophistication and capabilities of current mobile computing devices (Lyons - ¶ 8, 73-74). Such a modification provides a means of a user to experience and control virtual reality, augmented reality, and stereoscopic experiences such as 3D/360 degree games (Lyons - ¶ 3).
The above modification allows the main unit of Hodges in view of Lan to be removably attached/accommodated within the head-mounted device accessory of Lyons when the first and second controllers are not attached or detached, wherein such detachment is the second mode of operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAMAR HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-6177. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 5:30pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571) 270-1344. 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.
/TRAMAR HARPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715