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 .
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.
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 1-20 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.
As to claims 1, 8, 15, the claim recites “nominal interocular distance”, “nominal eye model” which appears to be a subjective/relative term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Specifically, what does or does not constitutes a “nominal” IOD/eye model appears subjective to a practitioner of the invention. Infringement appears dependent upon the opinion of a practitioner of the invention as to what would or would not qualify as “nominal”. Such term is used to designate something which may not be real or factual1. For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the art teaches calculating an IOD via eye data, such limitations are considered met.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 are rejected as dependent upon claims 1, 8, 15.
As to claim 3, the claim recites “both optical modules” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Specifically, claim 1 includes a “set of optical modules” which comprises a first optical module and a second optical module. Examiner will understand “both optical modules” as the first and second optical modules.
As to claim 3, the claim recites “a difference between one or both optical centers of eyes” which is unclear what is a difference between one optical center of an eye. For the singular option of “one”, this is a difference of what? (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Examiner will understand the difference as between both eyes.
As to claim 3, the claim recites “a difference between…one or both optical modules” which is unclear what is a difference between one optical module. For the singular option of “one”, this is a difference of what? (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Examiner will understand as a difference between the first and second optical modules.
As to claim 3, the claim recites “the determined difference” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Specifically, there are at least two determined differences - between one or both eyes; between one or both optical modules.
Claims 4-6 are rejected as dependent upon claim 3.
As to claim 5, the claim recites “an accommodation value”, accommodation of what? (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Examiner will understand anything to be an accommodation value.
As to claim 5, the claim recites “the distance” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Specifically, there are a couple distances. A distance between a set of optical modules (claim 1) and a determined distance (claim 5).
As to claim 13, the claim recites “guest mode” which is a relative/subjective term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Specifically, who or what is a guest appears subjective to a practitioner of the invention. The metes and bounds of are unclear since whether the same user is designated as a guest or not is subjective to a practitioner of the invention. Thus invention simultaneously infringes and doesn’t infringe itself based on the subjective designation of a guest. Examiner will understand that all users are guests and thus any use is a guest mode.
As to claim 17, the claim recites “both optical modules” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Specifically, claim 15 includes a “set of optical modules” which comprises a first optical module and a second optical module. Examiner will understand “both optical modules” as the first and second optical modules.
As to claim 17, the claim recites “a difference between one or both optical centers of eyes” which is unclear what is a difference between one optical center of an eye. For the singular option of “one”, this is a difference of what? (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Examiner will understand the difference as between both eyes.
As to claim 17, the claim recites “a difference between…one or both optical modules” which is unclear what is a difference between one optical module. For the singular option of “one”, this is a difference of what? (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Examiner will understand as a difference between the first and second optical modules.
As to claim 17, the claim recites “the determined difference” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Specifically, there are at least two determined differences - between one or both eyes; between one or both optical modules.
Claims 18-19 are rejected as dependent upon claim 17.
As to claim 19, the claim recites “an accommodation value”, accommodation of what? (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Examiner will understand anything to be an accommodation value.
As to claim 19, the claim recites “the distance” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Specifically, there are a couple distances. A distance between a set of optical modules (claim 15) and a determined distance (claim 19).
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claims 1, 8, 15, the claims recite “calculate a nominal interocular distance using a nominal eye model” which is a computer implemented function without the sufficient algorithm (MPEP 2161.01 - Similarly, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient)).
Specifically, Applicant’s specification fails to provide the sufficient/necessary algorithm for calculating a nominal IOD using a nominal eye model. Such calculation appears to be a proverbial black box (310, 610). MPEP 2161.01 - When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing…If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 are rejected as dependent upon claims 1, 8, 15.
As to claim 6, the claim recites “applying the sensor data to a load classifier model to predict a load classification” which is a computer implemented function without the sufficient algorithm (MPEP 2161.01). Specifically, Applicant’s specification fails to provide the sufficient/necessary algorithm for predicting a load classification. Such prediction appears to be a proverbial black box (510, 515).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US 2019/0204606 - Yang).
As to claim 1, Yang teaches a method comprising, in response to a headset device being placed on a head (Yang Fig. 1; Figs. 5, 5A),
calculating nominal IOD using a nominal eye model (Yang Fig. 5A - 540, 520; para. [0032], [0035]);
identifying a current device IOD based on a distance between a set of optical modules comprising a first optical module and a second optical module of a headset (Yang Fig. 5A - 402a, 402b; para. [0034], [0033]);
based on the nominal IOD and the current IOD, initiating an adjustment process to modify the distance between the first optical module and the secondo optical module (Yang Fig. 5A - 513, 512, 511; para. [0034]).
As to claim 2, Yang teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Yang further teaches in accordance with a completed adjustment process, enabling passthrough functionality on the headset device (Yang Fig. 5 - 501a, 501b; para. [0023], [0031]).
As to claim 3, Yang teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Yang further teaches the adjustment process comprises determining a difference between one or both optical centers of eyes in accordance with the nominal eye model (Yang para. [0035] - Another IOD calibration procedure that may be supported in one or more embodiments is measurement of the IOD 542, using for example, a retina scan integrated into the headset), and one or both optical modules of the headset device (Yang para. [0032], [0034]);
determining a target movement of at least one of the optical modules based on the determined difference (Yang para. [0034]);
and triggering, in response to user input, one or more motors to cause the distance between the set of optical modules to be adjusted in accordance with the target movement (Yang Fig. 5A - 530, 520, 513, 541; para. [0034]).
As to claim 4, Yang teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3, and Yang further teaches in accordance with a determination that the user input has ceased, cease adjustment of the one or both optical modules (Yang Fig. 5A - 541; para. [0035]).
As to claim 5, Yang teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3, and Yang further teaches determining the target movement comprises determining a direction and a distance to move at least one of the first optical module and second optical module (Yang Fig. 5A - 520, 513, 512, 511; para. [0032], [0034]), wherein the distance is based on the calculated nominal IOD (Yang para. [0034], [0035]), an accommodation value (Yang para. [0032]), and one or more physical constraints of the headset device (Yang para. [0032]).
As to claim 6, Yang teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3, and Yang further teaches in response to triggering the one or more motors to cause the distance between the set of optical modules to be adjusted, capturing sensor data while the one or more motors are causing the distance to be adjusted (Yang Fig. 5A - 540, 541, 530, 520, 513, 512; para. [0032]-[0035]), applying the sensor data to a load classifier model to predict a load classification (Yang Fig. 5A - 540, 541, 530, 520, 513, 512; para. [0032]-[0035] - Once user recognition 530 is performed, the IOD associated with the user is obtained from database 520, and is transmitted to motor controller 513 that actuates motor 512 to move the lenses to this IOD. The motor controller 513 may be for example embedded in hardware and software on the headset. Alternatively, portions of motor control logic may be executed remotely from the headset, and low-level motor controls (such as voltages or RPMs) may be transmitted to the headset for execution by motor 512), and modifying a performance of the one or more motors based on the load classification (Yang Fig. 5A - 540, 541, 530, 520, 513, 512; para. [0032]-[0035]).
As to claim 7, Yang teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Yang further teaches the set of optical module are adjusted independently of each other (Yang para. [0032] - A single actuator may drive both lenses (as in FIG. 5A), or separate actuators may be used for each lens).
As to claim 8, Yang teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable code executable by one or more processors to, in response to a headset device being placed on a head (Yang Fig. 1; Figs. 5, 5A)
calculate a nominal IOD using a nominal eye model (Yang Fig. 5A - 540, 520; para. [0032], [0035]);
compare a device IOD to a the calculated nominal IOD (Yang Fig. 5A - 402a, 402b; para. [0034], [0033]), wherein the device IOD is based on a distance between a set of optical modules comprising a first optical module and a second optical module of the headset (Yang Fig. 5A - 402a, 402b; para. [0034], [0033]);
in accordance with a determination that a difference between the device IOD and the calculated IOD satisfies a threshold (Yang Fig. 5A - 513, 512, 511; para. [0034], [0033]), initiate an adjustment process to modify the distance between the first optical module and the second optical module (Yang Fig. 5A - 513, 512, 511; para. [0034], [0033]).
As to claim 9, Yang teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 8, and Yang further teaches determine a user specific eye model (Yang Fig. 5A - 520; para. [0033]) and in accordance with a determination that a difference between an IOD based on the nominal eye model and an IOD based on the user-specific eye model satisfies a threshold, trigger a refinement process (Yang Fig. 5A - 513, 512, 511; para. [0035], [0033]-[0034]).
As to claim 10, Yang teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Yang further teaches computer readable code to present a user prompt related to the refinement process (Yang para. [0035]); and in accordance with receiving a response to the user prompt, perform the refinement process (Yang para. [0035]).
As to claim 11, Yang teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Yang further teaches determining a difference between one or both optical centers of eyes of a user in accordance with the user-specific eye model (Yang para. [0035] - Another IOD calibration procedure that may be supported in one or more embodiments is measurement of the IOD 542, using for example, a retina scan integrated into the headset), and one or both optical modules of the headset device(Yang para. [0032], [0034]); and determining a target movement of at least one of the optical modules based on the determined difference (Yang para. [0034]).
As to claim 12, Yang teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Yang further teaches computer readable code to detect that the headset device is placed on the head in a second instance (Yang Fig. 5A - 530); calculate an updated nominal IOD using the nominal eye model (Yang Fig. 5A - 520; para. [0033], [0034]); and compare the device IOD to the calculated nominal IOD to enable passthrough functionality on the headset (Yang Fig. 5 - 501a, 501b; para. [0023], [0031]).
As to claim 13, Yang teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 12, and Yang further teaches computer readable code to compare the updated nominal IOD to a stored user IOD associated with a primary user profile (Yang Fig. 5A - 520; para. [0033], [0035]); and
in response to a determination that the updated nominal IOD fails to satisfy a similarity threshold to the stored user IOD, initiate a guest mode (Yang Fig. 5A - 520; para. [0033], [0035]).
As to claim 14, Yang teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Yang further teaches the adjustment process is selected based on a data quality metric of eye tracking data used to calculate the nominal IOD (Yang Fig. 5A - 540, 541, 542; para. [0035]).
As to claim 15, Yang teaches a system (Yang Figs. 1, 5, 5A) one or more processors (Yang Fig. 5A); and
one or more computer readable media comprising computer readable code executable by the one or more processors to, in response to a headset device being placed on a head (Yang Figs. 5, 5A; para. [0033]):
calculate a nominal interocular distance (“IOD”) using a nominal eye model (Yang Fig. 5A - 540, 520; para. [0032], [0035]);
compare a device IOD to the calculated nominal IOD (Yang Fig. 5A - 402a, 402b; para. [0034], [0033]), wherein the device IOD is based on a distance between a set of optical modules comprising a first optical module and a second optical module of the headset (Yang Fig. 5A - 402a, 402b; para. [0034], [0033]); and
in accordance with a determination that a difference between the device IOD and the calculated nominal IOD satisfies a threshold (Yang Fig. 5A - 513, 512, 511; para. [0034], [0033]), initiate an adjustment process to modify the distance between the first optical module and the second optical module (Yang Fig. 5A - 513, 512, 511; para. [0034], [0033]).
As to claim 16, Yang teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 15, and Yang further teaches in accordance with a completed adjustment process, enabling passthrough functionality on the headset device (Yang Fig. 5 - 501a, 501b; para. [0023], [0031]).
As to claim 17, Yang teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 15, and Yang further teaches the adjustment process comprises determining a difference between one or both optical centers of eyes in accordance with the nominal eye model (Yang para. [0035] - Another IOD calibration procedure that may be supported in one or more embodiments is measurement of the IOD 542, using for example, a retina scan integrated into the headset), and one or both optical modules of the headset device (Yang para. [0032], [0034]);
determining a target movement of at least one of the optical modules based on the determined difference (Yang para. [0034]);
and triggering, in response to user input, one or more motors to cause the distance between the set of optical modules to be adjusted in accordance with the target movement (Yang Fig. 5A - 530, 520, 513, 541; para. [0034]).
As to claim 18, Yang teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 17, and Yang further teaches in accordance with a determination that the user input has ceased, cease adjustment of the one or both optical modules (Yang Fig. 5A - 541; para. [0035]).
As to claim 19, Yang teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 17, and Yang further teaches determining the target movement comprises determining a direction and a distance to move at least one of the first optical module and second optical module (Yang Fig. 5A - 520, 513, 512, 511; para. [0032], [0034]), wherein the distance is based on the calculated nominal IOD (Yang para. [0034], [0035]), an accommodation value (Yang para. [0032]), and one or more physical constraints of the headset device (Yang para. [0032]).
As to claim 20, Yang teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 15, and Yang further teaches determine a user specific eye model (Yang Fig. 5A - 520; para. [0033]) and in accordance with a determination that a difference between an IOD based on the nominal eye model and an IOD based on the user-specific eye model satisfies a threshold, trigger a refinement process (Yang Fig. 5A - 513, 512, 511; para. [0035], [0033]-[0034]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Chang et al. (US 11,835,725; 2023/0324699); Xia (US 11,977,237; 2022/0382063); Kimura (US 11,422,379; 2021/0132386); Lin et al. (US 11,064,188; 2021/0037232); Zhang et al. (US 10,674,141); Perreault et al. (US 10,241,329; 2019/0018236); Sylvan et al. (US 9,239,460; 2014/0333665); Xu et al. (US 2024/0361570); Lin et al. (US 2018/0348860); Aghara et al. (US 2017/0344107); Shimizu (US 2012/0162764) are cited as additional examples of headset device with IOD determinations and control for various users.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY W WILKES whose telephone number is (571)270-7540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 May 27, 2026
1 https://www.oed.com/dictionary/nominal_adj
Prosecution Insights