DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 response to this Office action, the Office respectfully requests that support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line numbers in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the Office in prosecuting this application.
The Office has cited particular figures, elements, paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims 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 from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider each of the cited references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage disclosed by the Office.
Priority
2. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Disposition of the Claims
3. The instant application was effectively filed on February 21, 2017, wherein claims 1-10 is currently pending, claims 11-27 are withdrawn with traverse see response to restriction dated 08/26/2025 and claims 23-43 are cancelled.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner appreciates response to received 10/30/2025 specifically addressing elected species as well as claims directed to elected species. Additionally, Examiner maintains restriction as previously provided dated 05/14/2025.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Fig’s. 10 and 11 comprises element 19 however, Applicants specification disclosure does not reference element 19.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a. “a transmission mechanism are used to obtain….” in claim 1.
b. “….the transmission mechanism to generate relative translation” in claim 6.
Furthermore, of all claim limitations a and b which invokes 112(f), structural support is provided as detailed in Applicants specification disclosure.
Regarding “transmission mechanism”, see Para. [0051] the transmission mechanism is a robot mechanism having four or more rotating shafts.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 “A measurement method of a near-eye display, wherein an plane-array photoelectric sensor having no imaging lens or an optical receiving screen, and a transmission mechanism are used to obtain an exit pupil parameter of a near-eye display to be measured; the method specifically comprises: the near-eye display to be measured displaying a picture, the plane-array photoelectric sensor or optical receiving screen being placed in a human eye viewing region of the near-eye display to be measured, and the plane-array photoelectric sensor or optical receiving screen directly receiving an optical output signal from the near-eye display to be measured and obtaining an illumination image; and the transmission mechanism controlling the relative displacement of the plane-array photoelectric sensor or the optical receiving screen and the near-eye display to be measured, and the illumination images obtained at different spatial positions being analyzed so as to obtain an exit pupil parameter of the near-eye display to be measured.”.
Examiner states a claim that includes both apparatus and method is indefinite under 35 U.S.C 112(b), since the claim is not clearly directed to either the apparatus or the method, leading to confusion as to when infringement occurs. Claim 1 does not provide an accurate determination of its “metes and bounds”, since it contains method limitations within an apparatus/system claim. An apparatus claim is a claim directed to a product and defines an invention by its physical or structural components or parts, which focus on “what” is the invention. A method claim is directed to steps of a process, which focus on “how” or a way of doing something and describes a series of steps or “actions” that achieve a particular result rather than the product used in those steps. Moreover, a claim is considered indefinite if it does not reasonably apprise those skilled in the art of its scope. Claim 1 lacks clarity and is ambiguous, therefore is rejected under 112(b) as being indefinite. To avoid ambiguity and ensure clarity, examiner suggest to clearly direct the claim to either the product or the process.
Additionally, Examiner states based on Applicant’s response to restriction requirement dated 08/26/2025, Group F (Fig. 7) was elected, however, claim 1 as recited is not directed or align with the method steps of the elected group.
Claims 2-10 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1 therefore are also indefinite.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "… the plane-array photoelectric sensor or optical receiving screen " see line 5 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the referenced optical receiving screen is a different optical receiving screen from previously recited optical receiving screen in line 2. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "… the plane-array photoelectric sensor or optical receiving screen " see line 7 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear the referenced optical receiving screen is a different optical receiving screen from previously recited optical receiving screen in line 2. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "… when the illumination image has the clearest boundary…." see lines 6-7 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by clearest, the boundaries imposed by this limitation is unknown wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art has no way of obtaining the meaning and/or determining the metes and bounds of the term " clearest". See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "… the plane-array photoelectric sensor or optical receiving screen " see line 7 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear the referenced optical receiving screen is a different optical receiving screen from previously recited optical receiving screen in line 2 of claim 1 of which it depends on. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "… the plane-array photoelectric sensor or optical receiving screen " see line 3 and 7 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the referenced optical receiving screen is a different optical receiving screen from previously recited optical receiving screen in line 2 of claim 1 of which it depends on. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the phrase "… the clearest boundary…." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by clearest, the boundaries imposed by this limitation is unknown wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art has no way of obtaining the meaning and/or determining the metes and bounds of the term " clearest". See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "… the position…" see line 6 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the recited “position” is in reference to previously claimed “different spatial positions” in claim 1 of which it depends on or is this a new position). See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the relative displacement " in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as no previous displacement is acquired.
Claim 2 recites the limitation " the boundary of the illumination image" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as no previous boundary is defined.
Claim 3 recites the limitation " the boundary of the illumination image" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as no previous boundary is defined.
Claims 5 and 6 recites the limitation "the illumination distribution image" in line 5 of claim 5 and lines 4-5 of claim 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as no previous illumination distribution image is mentioned.
Claims 5 and 6 recites the limitation "the relatively minimum area" in line 6 of claim 5 and line 5 of claim 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as no previous relative area is defined.
Claim 9 recites the limitation " ... the process …." in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as no previous mention of a process, additional claim 1 of which it depends on claims the apparatus and not the method which includes process.
Claim 9 recites the limitation " the relative position" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as no previous relative position is defined.
Claim 10 recites the limitation " the relative motion " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as no previous relative motion is defined.
Conclusion
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Closet prior art: WANG et al. (CN112816183 (A)) teaches a device and method for detecting movement characteristics of VR head-mounted display equipment. The device comprises VR head-mounted display equipment, a three-dimensional table, a sample table, a photoelectric sensor and a control module, wherein the sample table is installed on the three-dimensional table, the VR head-mounted display equipment is installed on the sample table, the photoelectric sensor is arranged at the exit pupil position of the VR head-mounted display equipment, and the three-dimensional table and the photoelectric sensor are respectively connected with the control module. The method comprises the steps of initializing parameters; generating a test signal; officially testing; and obtaining a movement delay and movement characteristic detection result according to the test data. According to the invention, testing can be carried out in three directions at the same time, detection steps are reduced, and detection time is shortened. The device and method can be widely applied to the field of VR device detection.
CHENGDU (CN111678674 (A)) teaches please refer to Figure 1. The near-eye display measurement system provided in this embodiment of the invention includes an image capturing device 10, an image capturing support mechanism 20, a near-eye display component to be tested 30, a module support mechanism to be tested 40, a position measuring device, a position adjusting mechanism, and a main control device (not shown in the figure).
The image capturing device 10 is mounted on the image capturing support mechanism 20 and can communicate with the main control device; the near-eye display component 30 to be tested is mounted on the module support mechanism 40 to be tested.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMY ONYEKABA whose telephone number is (571)270-7633. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-5.
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, NITIN K PATEL can be reached on 5712727677. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMY ONYEKABA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628