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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18599329 filed on 03/08/2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by e M.P.E.P. 210, 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on application JP2023-063038 (Japan).
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
However, to overcome a prior art rejection, applicant(s) must submit a translation of the foreign priority papers in order to perfect the claimed foreign priority because said papers has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP § 213.04
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the phrase limitation for “wiring configured to be formed in the frame using an MID” in lines 4-5. However, this limitation phrase is confusing because it is unclear how it can be understood and treated, given that it is unclear if wiring is formed by using some MID as a tool, device or apparatus for forming the wiring, or if the wiring configuration is such that comprises using or having MID? Furthermore, the phrase “using an MID” is ambiguous, since the term MID is unclear, not spelled out or given any explanation in the claims. Claims 2-6 and 8-9 also recite similar phrases where some structural component is formed “using an MID” and have the same clarity and definiteness issues as the phrase noted above, and additionally are unclear because of the term “an MID” in these dependent claims can be construed to be the same or different and how different from the “an MID” used in base claim 1. The limitation(s) above will be treated broadly, to the extent of the recited structure(s) of the head mounted display (HUD) device, e.g. where the structural component can be molded in some in the HUD device. It is suggested to amend the claims and provide explanations in order to remove the in definitiveness issues.
Claims 2-10 depend on claim 1 and therefore inherit the same issues. Claims 3-6 depend on claim 3 and therefore inherit the same issues. Claims 9-10 depend on claim 8 and therefore inherit the same issues. Claim 6 depends on claim 5 and therefore inherits the same issues.
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, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Patton et al. (hereafter Patton) US 20240192506 A1.
In regard to independent claim 1, Patton teaches (see Figs. 1-10) a head mounted display having a frame connecting left and right temporal regions (i.e. head mounted display device 10 with molded polymer structures and having frame e.g. 26 with left and right temporal regions of 26 incl. e.g. 26-2,26-1, 58, 60, abstract, paragraphs [02,04-06, 19-29,31-34, 36-43, 45-53], Figs. 1-4, 9), the head mounted display (10) comprising:
a first wiring configured to be formed in the frame using an MID so as to perform electrical connection between a control board disposed on one temporal region side and a circuit board disposed on the other temporal region side (i.e. as signal/power wires e.g. 78, 82, in cables polymer molded connecting control circuitry 12 in 76, 84 with other circuit board in other e.g. 78, 84 on different left/right temporal regions of 26, e.g. paragraphs [27-29,31-34, 36-43, 49-53], see Figs. 2-5,10).
Regarding claim 2, Patton teaches (see Figs. 1-10) further comprising:
cameras configured to be provided in the frame (i.e. i/o devices 22 incl. sensors 16 as cameras, three-dimensional image sensors e.g. as two or more cameras in a binocular imaging arrangement, paragraphs [17,24-25], Figs. 1-2); and
a second wiring configured to be formed in the frame using an MID so as to perform electrical connection between the control board and the cameras (i.e. as signal wires in 78, 82 cables polymer molded connecting control circuitry 12 in 76, 84 with camera sensors 16 in binocular imaging arrangement, e.g. paragraphs [24-27, 35-43, 49-53], see Figs. 2-5,10).
Regarding claim 8, Patton teaches (see Figs. 1-10) that a shield electrode pattern formed using an MID in a part of a casing that comes into contact with a user is provided when the user weas the head mounted display (i.e. as wires e.g. 78, 82, in cables polymer molded for connecting control circuitries are coaxial cables bundles in regions of 26 (88, 90) and casings 60 that come in contact when used, e.g. paragraphs [27-29,31-34, 36-43, 50-53], see Figs. 2-6,9-10).
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 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patton et al. (hereafter Patton) US 20240192506 A1.
Regarding claim 3, Patton teaches (see Figs. 1-10) that the frame has an upper frame and a lower frame (i.e. as support 26 frame with parts and inner frame parts has upper/tom frame/portions e.g. 50, 90 and lower/side frame/portions e.g. 56, 88 e.g. paragraphs [31-40], Figs. 2-5), the first wiring is formed in one of the upper frame and the lower frame using an MID (i.e. as 78, 82, in cables polymer molded in e.g. upper frame 50,90 e.g. paragraphs [27-29,31-34, 36-43, 47-48], see Figs. 2-8,10), and the second wiring is formed in one of the upper frame and the lower frame using an MID (i.e. as signal wires in 78, 82 cables polymer molded, connecting camera sensors 16 in binocular imaging arrangement are in one of the upper or lower frame 88 or 90, e.g. paragraphs [17,24-27, 35-43, 49-53], see Figs. 2-5,10), but Patton does not specify that wires to camera sensors 16 are in the other of the upper frame and the lower frame i.e. lower frame. However, this is seen as an obvious arrangement of the conducing wires in the HMD device frame. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the second wiring for connecting the camera sensors in binocular imaging arrangement to be routed through lower/side frame portions in order to provide connectivity, power and signals to cameras with control/battery circuits while accommodating cable connections with cable routing recess/channel (see e.g. paragraphs [17,24-25, 35-43], Figs. 1-2), since it has been held that a mere reversal of the working parts of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955), and In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167 (MPEP §2144.04, sec. VI).
Regarding claim 4, Patton teaches (see Figs. 1-10) that the first wiring is formed in the upper frame using an MID (i.e. as 78, 82, in cables polymer molded in e.g. upper frame 50,90 e.g. paragraphs [27-29,31-34, 36-43, 47-48], see Figs. 2-8,10), and the second wiring is formed in the lower frame using an MID (i.e. as signal wires in 78, 82 cables polymer molded, connecting camera sensors 16 in binocular imaging arrangement per combination in lower of the upper and lower frame 88 or 90, e.g. paragraphs [17,24-27, 35-43, 49-53], see Figs. 2-5,10),.
Regarding claim 5, Patton teaches (see Figs. 1-10) that wirings having different connection destinations are respectively formed on an upper side surface and a lower side surface of the upper frame using an MID (i.e. as 78, 82 to different connection destinations in cables and polymer molded are on upper and lower side of upper frame 50,90 e.g. paragraphs [27-29,31-34, 36-43, 47-48], see Figs. 2-8).
Regarding claim 6, Patton teaches (see Figs. 1-10) that the first wiring is formed on the upper side surface of the upper frame using an MID, and the second wiring is formed on the lower side surface of the upper frame using an MID (i.e. as 78, 82 to different connection destinations in cables and are polymer molded, with 78,82 are on upper and lower side of upper frame 50,90 e.g. paragraphs [27-29,31-34, 36-43, 47-48], see Figs. 2-8).
Regarding claim 7, Patton teaches (see Figs. 1-10) that the frame has a display unit for the right eye and a display unit for the left eye (i.e. as 10 with 26 has displays 14 (with e.g. 36, 38) for left and right eye at eye box 30, paragraphs [17, 23-24,27-30]), and cameras are respectively disposed in portions of the display unit for the right eye and the display unit for the left eye (i.e. i/o devices 22 incl. imaging sensors 16 as cameras, three-dimensional image sensors e.g. as two or more cameras in a binocular imaging arrangement in 10, 26,14, see paragraphs [17,24-25], Figs. 1-2), but Patton does not specify that cameras are disposed in lower portions of the display unit. However, this is seen as an obvious arrangement of cameras in a binocular imaging arrangement in the HMD device frame with displays. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange camera sensors in binocular imaging arrangement to be in lower positions of the display unit frame in order to provide gathering of three-dimensional images using such two (or more) cameras in a binocular imaging arrangement while not blocking or interfering with left/right display devices displaying virtual content to the user (see e.g. paragraphs [17,24-25, 35-43], Figs. 1-2), since it has been held that a mere reversal of the working parts of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955), and In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167 (MPEP §2144.04, sec. VI).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patton et al. (hereafter Patton) US 20240192506 A1 in view of Ng et al. (hereafter Ng) US 20130265117 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Patton teaches (see Figs. 1-10) a ground electrode of the control board (i.e. as control circuitry 12 is connected with battery supply and needs electrode/lead to connect to battery negative/ground terminal, paragraphs [20-27, 36-37]) but is silent that it is electrically connected to the shield electrode pattern formed using an MID (i.e. i.e. to coaxial part cables of 78, 82, that are polymer molded, e.g. paragraphs [27-29,31-34, 36-43, 50-53], see Figs. 2-6,9-10). However, Ng teaches in same field of invention of rf and high speed data cable in augmented reality head mounted display device (see Figs. 1-5, abstract, paragraphs [02-06, 25-34,50-60,63-65]) and further teaches that ground electrode is electrically connected to the shield electrode pattern (i.e. as cable 6 includes lines 412,414 of controller 406/400 include drain wire and EMI absorbing jacket connected to system ground, and providing for absorbing and reduction of noise, cross-talk and other electromagnetic interference (EMI), see paragraphs [03, 60-65]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the control circuit ground lead and coaxial part of polymer molded cables of Patton to be connected according to teachings of Ng, in order to provide for absorbing and reduction of noise and cross-talk, and other electromagnetic interference (EMI), see paragraphs [03, 60-65]).
Regarding claim 10, Patton teaches (see Figs. 1-10) the first wiring is configured to be surrounded by the shield electrode pattern (i.e. as wires e.g. 78, 82, in cables polymer molded, connecting control 12 with other circuitries are coaxial cables bundles around signal(s) carrying lines in 78, 82in regions of 26 (88, 90) and casings 60 that come in contact when used, e.g. paragraphs [27-29,31-34, 36-43, 50-53], see Figs. 2-6,9-10).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jouard et al. US 20190113769 A1, Erinjippurath et al. US 20150002374 A1 also disclose features of instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIN PICHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am -5:00pm.
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, Thomas K Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. 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.
/MARIN PICHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872