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 statement (IDS) submitted on 2/5/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 1, “a display means,” should be –a display means;--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(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.
Based on Applicant’s specification, the following terms are as follows:
Display means – eyeglasses lenses (page 4)
Mounting means – eyeglass frame (8) in figure 1 and page 4
Auditory stimulating means – bone conduction headphones in page 6
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 4, 7, 10, 12, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, 26, and 27 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 4 recites the limitation "the form" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “focused to infinity” in line 2. This is indefinite.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the lenses" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “digital hologram-type” in line 2. Usage of the “-type” renders the claim unclear as it cannot be determined what the metes and bounds of the claim are.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "around 2.5 metres to around 4 metres" in line 3. Usage of the term “around” with a range renders the claim unclear as it cannot be determined what degree outside of the range is encompassed by the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the individual apparatus" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This probably should be –the individual an apparatus--.
Claims 19, 22, 23, 24, and 26 inherit the deficiencies of claim 16 and are likewise rejected.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “focused to infinity” in line 3. This is indefinite.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “digital hologram-type” in line 2. Usage of the “-type” renders the claim unclear as it cannot be determined what the metes and bounds of the claim are.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "around 2.5 metres to around 4 metres" in line 3. Usage of the term “around” with a range renders the claim unclear as it cannot be determined what degree outside of the range is encompassed by the claim.
Claim 27 does not have a transitional phrase. It is not clear what the actual steps are involved in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2010/0271587 (Pavlopoulos).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 10, Pavlopoulos discloses eyewear with a display device (figures 1a, 1b, 5, 6, and 7 and paragraphs [0018]-[0129]) where the eyewear includes the following components:
a display means (transparent lenses and optical elements; figures 1a-b, elements 3 and 10 respectively; paragraphs [0073]-[0081]);
a mounting means for mounting said display means on a user (eyeglass frame; paragraphs [0070] and [0129]); and
a projection device (11 – imaging device; figures 2-7; paragraphs [0076]-[0129]) serving to project an image onto the display means in an upper region of the display means (element 10 – see figure 1b; display device is in the upper region; paragraphs [0017] and [0078]), the image perceived by the user to appear in an upper field of view of the user and to be a distance in front of the user (paragraphs [0111]) .
In can be seen that the projection device and display means provide an optical display system that takes the form of a pair of eyeglasses that form a heads-up display module, thus meeting the limitations of claims 3 and 4.
Regarding claim 5, Pavlopoulos discloses the limitations of claim 1. While Pavlopoulos does not disclose that the image is a horizontal line, the image is not being claimed. The limitation is directed towards an intended use of the claimed invention. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure can perform the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 7, Pavlopoulos discloses the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Pavlopoulos states that the image appears in the upper field of view and the display is focused at infinity (paragraphs [0006], [0088], [0111]).
Regarding claim 12, Pavlopoulos discloses the limitations of claim 1. The limitations of the present claim appear to be a recitation of an intended use of the image. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure can perform the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0271587 (Pavlopoulos) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US 2019/0385342 (Freeman et al., hereinafter Freeman).
Regarding claim 11, Pavlopoulos discloses the limitations of claim 1 but does not state that the lens is semi-reflexive. In a related area, Freeman discloses wearable mixed reality systems that use augmented reality glasses (title and abstract; figures 12-14). Of note is paragraph [0151] which discloses the use of reflective or semi-reflective/semi-reflexive lenses in the head-mounted display which enables the user to see the real world while viewing a projected image. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Pavlopoulos to use semi-reflective lenses as taught by Freeman to enable the user to see the real world while viewing a projected image.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0271587 (Pavlopoulos) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US 2019/0175073 (Sonntag et al., hereinafter Sonntag)
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Pavlopoulos discloses the limitations of claim 1 but does not state the presence of bone conduction headphones. In a related area, Sonntag discloses systems and methods used for posture and movement regulation (see title and abstract). Paragraphs [0121]-[0124] disclose the use of bone conducting headphones to provide feedback to a user that has balance disorders or are undergoing rehabilitation. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Pavlopoulos to includes bone-conduction headphones, as taught by Sonntag, to provide feedback to a user that has balance disorders or are undergoing rehabilitation.
Claim(s) 16, 19, 23, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0271587 (Pavlopoulos) in view of WO 2019/171216 A1 (Littwitz et al., hereinafter Littwitz).
Regarding claims 16 and 26, Pavlopoulos discloses eyewear with a display device (figures 1a, 1b, 5, 6, and 7 and paragraphs [0018]-[0129]) where the eyewear includes the following components:
a display means (transparent lenses and optical elements; figures 1a-b, elements 3 and 10 respectively; paragraphs [0073]-[0081]);
a mounting means for mounting said display means on a user (eyeglass frame; paragraphs [0070] and [0129]); and
a projection device (11 – imaging device; figures 2-7; paragraphs [0076]-[0129]) serving to project an image onto the display means in an upper region of the display means (element 10 – see figure 1b; display device is in the upper region; paragraphs [0017] and [0078]), the image perceived by the user to appear in an upper field of view of the user and to be a distance in front of the user (paragraphs [0111]) .
However, Pavlopoulos does not show the mounting of the device on a user. In a related area, Littwitz discloses the use of augmented reality systems for assisting in walking or movement disorders (see title and abstract). Figures 1-3 show the use of eyewear mounted on a user with paragraph [062] stating that these devices are mounted on users to assist with mobility related health disorders such as Parkinson’s disease (a neurodegenerative disease affecting locomotion). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention, to mount the device of Pavlopoulos on a patient as taught by Littwitz to assist users with mobility related disorders.
Regarding claim 19, Pavlopoulos and Littwitz disclose the limitations of claim 16. Pavlopoulos states that the image appears in the upper field of view and the display is focused at infinity (paragraphs [0006], [0088], and [0111]).
Regarding claim 23, Pavlopoulos and Littwitz disclose the limitations of claim 16. The limitations of claim 23 appear to be directed towards an intended result. Wherein clauses are not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited (MPEP 2111.04).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0271587 (Pavlopoulos) in view of WO 2019/0171216 A1 (Littwitz et al., hereinafter Littwitz) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US 2019/0385342 (Freeman et al., hereinafter Freeman).
Regarding claim 22, Pavlopoulos and Littwitz disclose the limitations of claim 16 and as noted in the rejection of claim 16 above that eyeglasses of Pavlopoulos form a head-up display module. However, they do not state that the lenses are semi-reflexive. In a related area, Freeman discloses wearable mixed reality systems that use augmented reality glasses (title and abstract; figures 12-14). Of note is paragraph [0151] which discloses the use of reflective or semi-reflective/semi-reflexive lenses in the head-mounted display which enables the user to see the real world while viewing a projected image. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Pavlopoulos to use semi-reflective lenses as taught by Freeman to enable the user to see the real world while viewing a projected image.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0271587 (Pavlopoulos) in view of WO 2019/0171216 A1 (Littwitz et al., hereinafter Littwitz) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US 2019/0175073 (Sonntag et al., hereinafter Sonntag)
Regarding claim 24, Pavlopoulos and Littwitz disclose the limitations of claim 16 but does not state the use of providing auditory stimulation to a user. In a related area, Sonntag discloses systems and methods used for posture and movement regulation (see title and abstract). Paragraphs [0121]-[0124] disclose the use of bone conducting headphones to provide audio stimulation feedback to a user that has balance disorders or is undergoing rehabilitation. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Pavlopoulos and Littwitz to includes providing auditory stimulation via bone-conduction headphones, as taught by Sonntag, in order to provide feedback to a user that has balance disorders or are undergoing rehabilitation.
Conclusion
The examiner notes that, though no art has been applied against claim 27 at this time, they are not presently allowable. The question of prior art will be revisited upon resolution of the numerous issues noted above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA DARYL DEANON LANNU whose telephone number is (571)270-1986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8 AM - 5 PM, Friday 8 AM -12 PM.
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, Charles Marmor can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/JOSHUA DARYL D LANNU/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CARRIE R DORNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights