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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection (see below).
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 1 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0199064 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0011553 A1).
As to claim 1, Cho shows an electronic device (HMD 100/eye-glasses 310, Figs. 1 and 6A and paras. 49, 88 and 89), comprising: a head mountable display (HMD 100, Figs. 1 and 3 and paras. 49 and 68) including a sensor (inherently included when detecting and RFID signal, para. 90); and a frame/housing removably connectable to the HMD (i.e. glasses 310, Fig. 3 and para. 68), the frame/housing comprising an identification feature detectable by the sensor (Fig. 6A and paras. 89 and 90), wherein the identification feature is associated with user information (Fig. 6A and paras. 64 and 98).
Cho does not show that the electronic device comprises a light seal.
Chen shows that an electronic device comprises a light seal (i.e. housing 110, Figs. 2A and 2B and paras. 18 and 19) which comprises an identification feature 115C (Figs. 3D and 3E and paras. 27 and 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Cho with those of Chen because modifying the device in this way allows the device to be rotatably coupled to the frame such that only some components in the housing are visible (Figs. 2A and 2B and paras. 18 and 19).
As to claim 2, Cho does not show that the HMD further includes a display screen; and the electronic device further comprises a securement band connected to the HMD.
Chen shows that an HMD 100 further includes a display screen 140 (Fig. 2B and para. 19); and the electronic device further comprises a securement band (frame 120) connected to the HMD (Fig. 2A and para. 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Cho with those of Chen because modifying the device in this way allows the device to be rotatably coupled to the frame such that only some components in the housing are visible (Figs. 2A and 2B and paras. 18 and 19).
As to claim 3, Cho shows that the frame/housing further comprises an antenna (inherently included in an RFID reader, paras. 53 and 90).
Cho does not show that the electronic device comprises a light seal.
Chen shows that an electronic device comprises a light seal (i.e. housing 110, Figs. 2A and 2B and paras. 18 and 19) which comprises an identification feature 115C (Figs. 3D and 3E and paras. 27 and 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Cho with those of Chen because modifying the device in this way allows the device to be rotatably coupled to the frame such that only some components in the housing are visible (Figs. 2A and 2B and paras. 18 and 19).
As to claim 4, Cho shows that the identification feature comprises an electromagnetic signal transmitted by the antenna (i.e. RFID, paras. 53 and 90).
As to claim 5, Cho shows a memory component disposed in the device, the memory component including user-specific data (para. 64).
Cho does not show that the electronic device comprises a light seal.
Chen shows that an electronic device comprises a light seal (i.e. housing 110, Figs. 2A and 2B and paras. 18 and 19) which comprises an identification feature 115C (Figs. 3D and 3E and paras. 27 and 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Cho with those of Chen because modifying the device in this way allows the device to be rotatably coupled to the frame such that only some components in the housing are visible (Figs. 2A and 2B and paras. 18 and 19).
As to claim 6, Cho shows that the antenna transmits the user-specific data to the HMD (para. 64).
As to claim 7, Cho does not show that a light seal is fitted to a face.
Chen shows that a light seal (i.e. HMD 100/housing 110) is fitted to a face (Figs. 1, 2A and 2B and paras. 17 – 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Cho with those of Chen because modifying the device in this way allows the device to be rotatably coupled to the frame such that only some components in the housing are visible (Figs. 2A and 2B and paras. 18 and 19).
Claims 8, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0199064 A1) in view of Fallon et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0004481 A1).
As to claim 8, Cho shows a wearable electronic device (HMD 100/eye-glasses 310, Figs. 1 and 6A and paras. 49, 88 and 89), comprising: a frame/housing (i.e. glasses 310, Fig. 3 and para. 68) comprising an identification feature (Fig. 6A and paras. 89 and 90); and a head mountable display (HMD) 100 that is removably connectable to the frame/housing (Fig. 3 and para. 68) and includes a display configured to display a confirmatory image associated with the identification feature (paras. 91 – 95 and 113).
Cho does not show that the electronic device comprises a light seal comprising a pliable material configured to conform to a user.
Fallon shows that an electronic device comprises a light seal 114 comprising a pliable material configured to conform to a user (Fig. 1A and para. 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Cho with those of Fallon because modifying the device in this way allows the device to prevent extraneous light from passing to the user's eyes while wearing the device (Fig. 1A and para. 15).
As to claim 9, Cho shows that the HMD further including a sensor configured to detect the identification feature (inherently included when detecting and RFID signal, paras. 89 and 90).
As to claim 11, Cho shows that the identification feature comprises a unique visual component corresponding to the confirmatory image (Fig. 6A and paras. 91 – 95 and 113).
Claims 16 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0199064 A1) in view of Stellman et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0132394 A1).
As to claim 16, Cho shows a head mountable display (HMD 100/310, Figs. 1 and 6A and paras. 49, 88 and 89), comprising: a sensor (inherently included when detecting and RFID signal, para. 90); an optical lens connection feature (Fig. 3 and para. 68); and a removable frame/housing (i.e. glasses 310, Fig. 3 and para. 68) comprising: a depth (i.e. size/thickness, for example, Fig. 6A and para. 89); and an identification feature associated with the depth (i.e. size/thickness, for example, Fig. 6A and para. 89).
Cho does not show that the electronic device comprises a shroud, of that the depth indicates a distance between a user’s eyes and an optical lens.
Chen shows that an electronic device comprises a shroud (i.e. housing 110, Figs. 2A and 2B and paras. 18 and 19) which comprises an identification feature 115C (Figs. 3D and 3E and paras. 27 and 28).
Stellman shows an electronic device 100 comprises a shroud (Figs. 1 A and 1B and para. 24), and that a depth indicates a distance between a user’s eyes and an optical lens (para. 78).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Cho with those of Stellman because modifying the device in this way allows the device to reduce contamination on the screen while also allowing for interpupillary adjustments (para. 20).
As to claim 17, Cho shows a display screen (Fig. 3 and para. 68), wherein the optical lens connection feature is configured to removably connect an optical lens to the HMD adjacent to the display screen (Fig. 3 and para. 68).
As to claim 18, Cho shows a processor 140 that determines if the removable shroud is appropriate for connecting to the HMD based on the depth (Figs. 1 and 6A and paras. 89 and 90).
As to claim 19, Cho shows that the HMD further comprises a memory component configured to store data including the depth (i.e. look-up table, for example, Fig. 6B and para. 91).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 12 – 15 and 20 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.
Specifically, claim 10 recites “… the confirmatory image is shown on the display when the sensor detects the identification feature”.
The prior art does not show this configuration; therefore, this claim contains allowable subject matter.
Claim 12 recites “… the confirmatory image and the unique visual component comprise a common color.”
The prior art does not show this configuration; therefore, this claim contains allowable subject matter.
Claim 13 recites “… the confirmatory image and the unique visual component comprise a common symbol.”
The prior art does not show this configuration; therefore, this claim contains allowable subject matter
Claim 14 recites “… an ambient light sensor configured to detect a presence of the light seal.”
The prior art does not show this configuration; therefore, this claim contains allowable subject matter
Claim 15 recites “… a time of flight sensor configured to detect a depth of the light seal.”
The prior art does not show this configuration; therefore, this claim contains allowable subject matter
Claim 20 recites “… the processor is configured to determine whether an optical lens is connected to the optical lens connection feature when determining if the removable shroud is appropriate for connecting to the HMD.”
The prior art does not show this configuration; therefore, this claim contains allowable subject matter
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 CARL ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. 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.
/CARL ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 2627