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 § 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)(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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 112180609 A (CN’609, machine translation attached with this Office action, citations are made to the provided translation).
Regarding Claim 1, CN’609 discloses (where the whole document appears relevant) a diopter adjustment device 1, comprising: a lens mounting part 11; a guide adjustment part 16; and a driving part 13; wherein the lens mounting part is configured to mount a lens module 14/15; the guide adjustment part is connected to the lens mounting part (Figs. 1–3), the guide adjustment part moves along a preset path to drive the lens mounting part to move along a first direction (paragraphs [0035] and [0041]–[0045] of the translation, where both the lens mounting part 11 and guide adjustment part 16 move relative to each other along the first direction); and the driving part is configured to drive the guide adjustment part to move along the preset path (Figs. 1–3; paragraphs [0035] and [0041]–[0045]).
Regarding Claim 4, CN’609 discloses wherein the guide adjustment part defines an accommodating cavity, at least one first guide groove 161 is defined on an inner surface of the accommodating cavity, a preset included angle is formed between an extending direction of the at least one first guide groove and the first direction (e.g., thread); and the lens mounting part is at least partially accommodated in the accommodating cavity (Figs. 1–3), at least one first guide protrusion 111 is disposed on an outer surface of the lens mounting part, and the least one first guide protrusion is in clearance fit with the first guide groove (paragraph [0045]).
Regarding Claim 6, CN’609 discloses wherein the at least one first guide groove spirally extends (Fig. 2; paragraph [0045], groove 161 described as thread).
Regarding Claim 7, CN’609 discloses wherein both the lens mounting part and the guide adjustment part are cylindrical structures (Figs. 1–3), the guide adjustment part coaxially covers on a periphery of the lens mounting part (e.g., paragraph [0045]).
Regarding Claim 10, CN’609 discloses a virtual reality (VR) apparatus, comprising: the diopter adjustment device according to claim 1 (e.g., paragraph [0057]).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN’609 in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0320612 to Zhang.
Regarding Claim 2, CN’609 discloses that driving assembly 12 and gear transmission assembly 13 include gears 131, 132, and 133, and also teaches that the gearing configurations may be used that achieve similar effects (e.g., paragraph [0050]); however, CN’609 does not explicitly disclose a worm gear as part of the assembly, and thus does not explicitly disclose wherein the driving part comprises a driving motor, a worm, a transmission gear set, and a ring gear; an output shaft of the driving motor is coupled to the worm to drive the worm to rotate; the ring gear is disposed on the guide adjustment part, and the transmission gear set is respectively engaged with the worm and the gear ring.
Zhang discloses a projecting device, and teaches diopter adjustment mechanism including a worm gear because of its self-locking property (e.g., paragraph [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of CN’609 to include a worm gear, as suggested by Zhang, in order to provide self-locking positioning with the diopter adjustment device, such that the combination would have rendered obvious wherein the driving part comprises a driving motor, a worm, a transmission gear set, and a ring gear; an output shaft of the driving motor is coupled to the worm to drive the worm to rotate; the ring gear is disposed on the guide adjustment part, and the transmission gear set is respectively engaged with the worm and the gear ring (noting also that each of the recited components are known gear/driving components, operating in their typical fashion, such that the combination amounts to no more than known components operating in predictable manner).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of CN’609 and Zhang would have rendered obvious wherein the transmission gear set comprises a first gear and a second gear, the first gear and the second gear are coaxially disposed, a diameter of the first gear is different from a diameter of the second gear, the first gear is engaged with the worm, and the second gear is engaged with the gear ring (where selecting from known gear components and arrangements, operating in predictable manner, would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN’609.
Regarding Claim 5, CN’609 discloses wherein a plurality of first guide protrusions are disposed on the outer surface of the lens mounting part (Fig. 3), and a plurality of first guide grooves are defined on the inner wall of the accommodating cavity (Fig. 2).
However, CN’609 appears silent regarding the relative ratio of parts, and thus does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of the first guide protrusions are disposed in one-to-one correspondence with the plurality of the first guide grooves.
Selecting a correspondence between the first guide protrusions and the first guide grooves would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, where selecting a one-to-one ratio would maximize engagement between the protrusions and grooves, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claimed ratio.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN’609 in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0017843 to Tsai.
Regarding Claim 8, CN’609 does not explicitly disclose wherein the diopter adjustment device comprises a limiting part, the limiting part is configured to limit further movement of the guide adjustment part when the guide adjustment part moves from a starting end of the preset path to a tail end of the preset path.
Tsai teaches using travel stops 210 to limit lateral movement based on rotation to ensure the traveling component does not travel too far in either direction (paragraph [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of CN’609 to include a limiting part, the limiting part configured to limit further movement of the guide adjustment part when the guide adjustment part moves from a starting end of the preset path to a tail end of the preset path, as suggested by Tsai, in order to ensure that the relative movement of the guide adjustment part stays within desired bounds.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN’609 and Tsai, in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0258660 to Negrin.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of CN’609 and Tsai does not explicitly disclose wherein the limiting part comprises at least one limiting protrusion, a first travel switch, and a second travel switch; the at least one limiting protrusion is disposed on the guide adjustment part; and both the first travel switch and the second travel switch are electrically connected to the driving part; the first travel switch is disposed at the tail end of the preset path, when the at least one limiting protrusion moves to the tail end of the preset path, the at least one limiting protrusion triggers the first travel switch; the second travel switch is disposed at the starting end of the preset path, when the at least one limiting protrusion moves to the starting end of the preset path, the at least one limiting protrusion triggers the second travel switch.
Negrin teaches the inclusion of a position sensor that detects when the moveable component rests on the travel stop (e.g., paragraph [0105]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of CN’609 and Tsai to incorporate the further inclusion of position sensors at the extreme ends of movement where the travel stops are provided, to provide additional information about the operation of the system, such that the combination of references would have rendered obvious wherein the limiting part comprises at least one limiting protrusion, a first travel switch, and a second travel switch; the at least one limiting protrusion is disposed on the guide adjustment part; and both the first travel switch and the second travel switch are electrically connected to the driving part; the first travel switch is disposed at the tail end of the preset path, when the at least one limiting protrusion moves to the tail end of the preset path, the at least one limiting protrusion triggers the first travel switch; the second travel switch is disposed at the starting end of the preset path, when the at least one limiting protrusion moves to the starting end of the preset path, the at least one limiting protrusion triggers the second travel switch.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871