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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/28/2024, 12/06/2024, and 05/05/2025 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 9 - 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Miller et. al. (US 2018/0338130 A1).
Regarding claim 9 Miller teaches (figs. 1, 3A-3B, and 6-7) a wearable electronic device comprising:
a housing (see fig. 1; para. 0019);
an optical module (300) coupled to the housing (para. 0034), the optical module comprising:
a first display (300; para. 0020);
and a second display (720; para. 0020);
and an input device (115) on an exterior of the housing, wherein relative positions of the first display and the second display are adjustable based on a signal from the input device (para. 0023).
Regarding claim 10 Miller teaches (figs. 1, 3A-3B, and 6-7) a wearable electronic device, where the input device is configured to adjust a position of the first display relative to the second display based on an interpupillary distance of a user donning the wearable electronic device (para. 0023).
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 1-8 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et. al. (US 2018/0338130 A1) in view of Xu et. al. (US 2024/0361570 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Miller teaches (figs. 1, 3A-3B, and 6-7) a head-mountable device (HMD) comprising:
a housing (see fig. 1; para. 0019);
a securement band (130) coupled to the housing and configured to retain the HMD on a head of a user (para. 0019);
an optical module (300) coupled to the housing (para. 0034), the optical module comprising:
an internal display configured to project light toward the user (para. 0035);
and an input device (115) coupled to the housing and configured to adjust a position of the optical module (para. 0023).
Miller does not teach an internal sensor oriented toward the user.
Xu teaches an internal sensor oriented toward the user (para. 0120).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the HMD as taught by Miller with the internal sensor system as taught by Xu to track eye movement during utilization.
Regarding claim 2 Miller teaches (figs. 1, 3A-3B, and 6-7) a head-mountable device, where the input device is configured to adjust the position of the optical module relative to the housing (para. 0023).
Regarding claim 3 Miller teaches (figs. 1, 3A-3B, and 6-7) a head-mountable device, where the internal display is a first internal display (300; para. 0020);
the optical module further comprises a second internal display (720; para. 0020);
the position is a first position; and the input device is configured to adjust the first position and a second position the second internal display based on an interpupillary distance of the user (para. 0023).
Regarding claim 4 Miller teaches (figs. 1, 3A-3B, and 6-7) a head-mountable device, except where the internal sensor is a first internal sensor;
the optical module further comprises a second internal sensor;
and the input device is configured to, when actuated, adjust a position of the first internal sensor relative to the second internal sensor based on an interpupillary distance of the user.
Xu teaches where the internal sensor is a first internal sensor (342; para. 0128);
the optical module further comprises a second internal sensor (342; para. 0128);
and the input device is configured to, when actuated, adjust a position of the first internal sensor relative to the second internal sensor based on an interpupillary distance of the user (para. 0128-0129).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the HMD as taught by Miller with the internal sensor system as taught by Xu to track eye movement during utilization.
Regarding claim 5 Miller teaches (figs. 1, 3A-3B, and 6-7) a head-mountable device, where the input device comprises a button (para. 0023).
Regarding claim 6 Miller teaches (figs. 1, 3A-3B, and 6-7) a head-mountable device, except where the input device comprises a digital dial.
Xu teaches where the input device comprises a digital dial (para. 0133).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the HMD as taught by Miller with the input device as taught by Xu for the benefit of a multifunction input device. Furthermore it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious.
Regarding claim 7 Miller teaches (figs. 1, 3A-3B, and 6-7) a head-mountable device, except where the internal sensor is configured to detect the user.
Xu teaches where the internal sensor is configured to detect the user (para. 0120).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the HMD as taught by Miller with the internal sensor system as taught by Xu to track eye movement during utilization.
Regarding claim 8 Miller teaches (figs. 1, 3A-3B, and 6-7) a head-mountable device, where the internal sensor comprises a camera.
Xu teaches where the internal sensor comprises a camera (para. 0120).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the HMD as taught by Miller with the internal sensor system as taught by Xu to track eye movement during utilization.
Regarding claim 11 Miller teaches (figs. 1, 3A-3B, and 6-7) a wearable electronic device, except where the input device comprises first button and a second button.
Xu teaches where the input device comprises first button and a second button (para. 0133).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the HMD as taught by Miller with the input device as taught by Xu for the benefit of a multifunction input device. Furthermore it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious.
Regarding claim 12 Miller teaches (figs. 1, 3A-3B, and 6-7) a wearable electronic device, except where the input device comprises a rotatable dial.
Xu teaches where the input device comprises a rotatable dial (para. 0133).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the HMD as taught by Miller with the input device as taught by Xu for the benefit of a multifunction input device. Furthermore it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious.
Regarding claim 13 Miller teaches (figs. 1, 3A-3B, and 6-7) a wearable electronic device, except where the optical module further comprises a first sensor and a second sensor;
and the input device is further configured to adjust a position of the first sensor relative to the second sensor based on an interpupillary distance of a user donning the wearable electronic device.
Xu teaches where the optical module further comprises a first sensor and a second sensor (342; para. 0128);
and the input device is further configured to adjust a position of the first sensor relative to the second sensor based on an interpupillary distance of a user donning the wearable electronic device (para. 018-0129).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the HMD as taught by Miller with the internal sensor system as taught by Xu to track eye movement during utilization.
Regarding claim 14 Miller teaches (figs. 1, 3A-3B, and 6-7) a wearable electronic device except, where the first sensor and the second sensor are configured to perform gaze detection on the user.
Xu teaches where the first sensor and the second sensor are configured to perform gaze detection on the user (para. 018-0129).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the HMD as taught by Miller with the internal sensor system as taught by Xu to track eye movement during utilization.
Regarding claim 15 Miller teaches (figs. 1, 3A-3B, and 6-7) a wearable electronic device except, where the first sensor and the second sensor are configured to detect the interpupillary distance.
Xu teaches where the first sensor and the second sensor are configured to detect the interpupillary distance (para. 018-0129).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the HMD as taught by Miller with the internal sensor system as taught by Xu to track eye movement during utilization.
Regarding claim 16 Miller teaches (figs. 1, 3A-3B, and 6-7) a display system comprising:
a housing (see fig. 1; para. 0019);
an input device positioned on an exterior of the housing (115; para. 0023);
a display configured to display an image to a user (para. 0034-0035).
Miller does not teach a sensor configured to face toward the user, where a position of the sensor relative to the housing is adjustable based on an input received by the input device.
Xu teaches a sensor configured to face toward the user, where a position of the sensor relative to the housing is adjustable based on an input received by the input device (para. 0120; 0127 - 0128).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the HMD as taught by Miller with the internal sensor system as taught by Xu to track eye movement during utilization.
Regarding claim 17 Miller teaches (figs. 1, 3A-3B, and 6-7) a display system, except where the input device comprises a button; and the input comprises a press of the button.
Xu teaches where the input device comprises a button; and the input comprises a press of the button (para. 0133).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the HMD as taught by Miller with the input device as taught by Xu for the benefit of a multifunction input device. Furthermore it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious.
Regarding claim 18 Miller teaches (figs. 1, 3A-3B, and 6-7) a display system, except where the input device comprises a dial and the input comprises a rotation of the dial.
Xu teaches where the input device comprises a dial and the input comprises a rotation of the dial (para. 0133).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the HMD as taught by Miller with the input device as taught by Xu for the benefit of a multifunction input device. Furthermore it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious.
Regarding claim 19 Miller teaches (figs. 1, 3A-3B, and 6-7) a display system, except where the sensor is a first sensor; the display system further comprises a second sensor; and a distance between the first sensor and the second sensor is adjustable based on the input.
Xu teaches where the sensor is a first sensor; the display system further comprises a second sensor (para. 0128-0129) and a distance between the first sensor and the second sensor is adjustable based on the input (para. 0128-0129).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the HMD as taught by Miller with the internal sensor system as taught by Xu to track eye movement during utilization.
Regarding claim 20 Miller teaches (figs. 1, 3A-3B, and 6-7) a display system, except where the position of the sensor relative to the housing is adjustable based further on an interpupillary distance of the user.
Xu teaches where the position of the sensor relative to the housing is adjustable based further on an interpupillary distance of the user (para. 0128-0129).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the HMD as taught by Miller with the internal sensor system as taught by Xu to track eye movement during utilization.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Further HMD with IPD adjustment systems include Tseng et. al. (US 2021/0149151 A1), Polcak et. al. (US 10,816,807 B2), Yun et. al. (US 2017/0094816 A1), and Kim et. al. (US 2016/0255748 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 a.m. -6 p.m..
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, 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.
/Robert E. Tallman/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872