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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 November 2025 has been entered in which claims 1, 5, 6, and 30 are amended. Claims 1-30 are currently pending and an office action on the merits follows.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 13-15 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.
Claims 13-15 recites the limitation "the end piece" in line 1 of each. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. These claims depend upon claim 1 which does not recite “an end piece”. Claim 10 recites “an end piece” in line 2 and for purposes of examination, claims 13-15 will be interpreted as intending to depend upon claim 10.
Inventorship
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.
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, 3-8, 16, 18, 20, 21, and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0223575 by Lapidot et al. (“Lapidot”) in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0266986 by Magyari (“Magyari”).
As to claim 1, Lapidot discloses an AR glasses (Lapidot, AR device 10, Figure 1) comprising a frame with a front frame part (Lapidot, spectacles frame 11, Figure 1), mounting means and an optical unit (Lapidot, FIG. 1 shows an AR device 10 according to the invention that is detachably clip-mounted on to the front of a spectacles frame 11 worn by an observer constituting a local user 12. By such means the device is mounted directly in front of the local user's eyes, allowing him to observe a scene through an exit window 13. Figure 1, ¶ [0020]),
wherein the optical unit (Lapidot, AR device 10, Figure 1) is held in the front frame part (Lapidot, FIG. 1 shows an AR device 10 according to the invention that is detachably clip-mounted on to the front of a spectacles frame 11 worn by an observer constituting a local user 12. By such means the device is mounted directly in front of the local user's eyes, allowing him to observe a scene through an exit window 13. Figure 1, ¶ [0020]) and arranged within the front frame part and protruding downward from the front frame part,
wherein the optical unit forms a module mountable to the eyeglass frame as a single component (Lapidot, FIG. 1 shows an AR device 10 according to the invention that is detachably clip-mounted on to the front of a spectacles frame 11 worn by an observer constituting a local user 12. By such means the device is mounted directly in front of the local user's eyes, allowing him to observe a scene through an exit window 13. Also, the local user can see graphical annotations projected to his eye by the detachable device 10 and overlaid on the real scene. There is no need to mount the device or any of its components on the temple pieces (side arms) of the user's spectacles. Figure 1, ¶ [0020]), and
wherein the optical unit (Lapidot, the device 10 houses optics 40, Figure 3D, ¶ [0034]) comprises at least a display source (Lapidot, micro-display 39, Figure 3D), at least one refractive device (Lapidot, two doublets 41, 41′ and a combined prism 42. The doublets 41, 41′ create a combined objective with equivalent focal length of 21 mm. Figure 3D, ¶ [0034]) and a beamsplitter (Lapidot, partial mirror surface 46 has a reflection of ≈50% and transmission of ≈50%. Figure 3D, ¶ [0034]).
Lapidot does not expressly teach
wherein the optical unit is held in the front frame part arranged within the front frame part and protruding downward from the front frame part,
Magyari teaches a head mounted display wherein the optical unit is held in the front frame part arranged within the front frame part and protruding downward from the front frame part (Magyari, The HMD device 5 includes a frame 10 and at least one near-to-eye optics housing 15 connected to the frame 10. Figures 1 and 2, ¶ [0059]) (Magyari, Referring again to FIGS. 1 through 6, the primary transmission housing 40 is a chamber of the near-to-eye optics housing 15 in the HMD device 5 in which the projection of the visual content from the light-emitting visual source 20 originates, and in which the majority of the optical reflection and magnification of the projected visual content occurs. Figures 1-6, ¶ [0070]),
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lapidot’s mounted AR device to include Magyari’s optical housing mounting because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Magyari’s optical housing mounting is comparable to Lapidot’s mounted AR device because both are directed to a display device to a head worn device. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lapidot’s mounted AR device to include Magyari’s optical housing mounting with the predictable result of providing the display device provided attached to the bottom of the glasses frame.
Thus, Lapidot, as modified by Magyari, teaches the optical unit being positioned in the front of the glasses and protruding downward.
As to claim 3, Lapidot, as modified by Magyari, teaches the AR glasses wherein the optical unit comprises a main frame (Magyari, The HMD device 5 includes a frame 10 and at least one near-to-eye optics housing 15 connected to the frame 10. Figures 1 and 2, ¶ [0059]) (Magyari, Referring again to FIGS. 1 through 6, the primary transmission housing 40 is a chamber of the near-to-eye optics housing 15 in the HMD device 5 in which the projection of the visual content from the light-emitting visual source 20 originates, and in which the majority of the optical reflection and magnification of the projected visual content occurs. Figures 1-6, ¶ [0070]). In addition, the motivation used is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 4, Lapidot, as modified by Magyari, teaches the AR glasses wherein the main frame is not transparent for visible light (Magyari, the primary transmission housing 40 is a substantially opaque, Figures 1-6, ¶ [0070]). In addition, the motivation used is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 5, Lapidot, as modified by Magyari, teaches the AR glasses wherein at least one of the following optical elements is/are arranged within the main frame or protrudes from the main frame: the display source (Lapidot, micro-display 39, Figure 3D), the at least one refractive device (Lapidot, two doublets 41, 41′ and a combined prism 42. The doublets 41, 41′ create a combined objective with equivalent focal length of 21 mm. Figure 3D, ¶ [0034]) and the beamsplitter (Lapidot, partial mirror surface 46 has a reflection of ≈50% and transmission of ≈50%. Figure 3D, ¶ [0034]). As shown in figures 3C and 3D of Lapidot, these components are all within or attached to the housing 31 as they are part of the optics 40. (Magyari, Referring again to FIGS. 1 through 6, the primary transmission housing 40 is a chamber of the near-to-eye optics housing 15 in the HMD device 5 in which the projection of the visual content from the light-emitting visual source 20 originates, and in which the majority of the optical reflection and magnification of the projected visual content occurs. Figures 1-6, ¶ [0070]). In addition, the motivation used is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 6, Lapidot, as modified by Magyari, teaches the AR glasses wherein the optical unit comprises a mirror (Lapidot, mirror surface 45, Figure 3D) and wherein the mirror is arranged within the main frame. As shown in figure 3D of Lapidot, the mirror surface 45 is within the optics 40 within the device 10. (Magyari, Referring again to FIGS. 1 through 6, the primary transmission housing 40 is a chamber of the near-to-eye optics housing 15 in the HMD device 5 in which the projection of the visual content from the light-emitting visual source 20 originates, and in which the majority of the optical reflection and magnification of the projected visual content occurs. Figures 1-6, ¶ [0070]). In addition, the motivation used is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 7, Lapidot, as modified by Magyari, teaches the AR glasses wherein the main frame is formed by a closed hollow body with an opening closed by the display source (Magyari, Referring again to FIGS. 1 through 6, the primary transmission housing 40 is a chamber of the near-to-eye optics housing 15 in the HMD device 5 in which the projection of the visual content from the light-emitting visual source 20 originates, and in which the majority of the optical reflection and magnification of the projected visual content occurs. Figures 1-6, ¶ [0070]). In addition, the motivation used is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 8, Lapidot, as modified by Magyari, teaches the AR glasses wherein the main frame comprises additional openings closed by at least one cover closing an opening leading to the at least one refractive device and, if present, by the mirror (Magyari, Referring again to FIGS. 1 through 6, the primary transmission housing 40 is a chamber of the near-to-eye optics housing 15 in the HMD device 5 in which the projection of the visual content from the light-emitting visual source 20 originates, and in which the majority of the optical reflection and magnification of the projected visual content occurs. Figures 1-6, ¶ [0070]). In addition, the motivation used is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 16, Lapidot, as modified by Magyari, teaches the AR glasses wherein the optical unit is movable held within the front frame part, wherein the optical unit is slidable and/or rotatable relative to the front frame part (Magyari, the optics housings 15 may be hingeably connected to the frame 10 such that the optics housings 15 can be selectably rotated about a hinge to remove the optics housings 15 from a location in front of the user's eyes and remove them from the user's line of sight. ¶ [0062]). In addition, the motivation used is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 18, Lapidot, as modified by Magyari, teaches the AR glasses wherein the AR glasses comprise an electronic unit, which is arranged within the front frame part of the eyeglass frame (Magyari, the light-emitting visual source 20 is a micro-display connected to a power source, wherein the micro-display includes a source input for accepting input signals from an external source, which are to be output in visual form. However, the disclosure of the aforementioned embodiment should not be read to limit the type of light-emitting visual source(s) that may be utilized in the practice of the matter disclosed herein. Accordingly, in alternate embodiments, the light-emitting visual source 20 can be a laser writer, micro-projector, or any other device or system that is capable of displaying visual content. Furthermore, the light-emitting visual source 20 may receive the input signals from the external source via conventional wires or cables, fiber optics, wireless signal transmission, or any other similar way of transmitting signals known to those skilled in the art of signal and data transmission. Figure 3, ¶ [0065]). In addition, the motivation used is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 20, Lapidot, as modified by Magyari, teaches the AR glasses wherein the mounting means are a first eyeglass temple and a second eyeglass temple (Lapidot, temple pieces, Figure 1, ¶ [0020]).
As to claim 21, Lapidot, as modified by Magyari, teaches the AR glasses wherein the first eyeglass temple and the second eyeglass temple are movable relative to the front frame part so that the eyeglass frame is foldable (Lapidot, temple pieces, Figure 1, ¶ [0020]). Temple arms are foldable with respect to the frame of the eyeglasses.
As to claim 26, Lapidot, as modified by Magyari, teaches the AR glasses comprising a camera being inclined towards a bottom (Lapidot, window 36 is provided through which a built-in camera 37 located inside the device and shown schematically in dotted outline in FIG. 3c images the external scene. Figure 3C, ¶ [0024]).
As to claim 27, Lapidot, as modified by Magyari, teaches the AR glasses wherein the optical unit is inclined compared to a bottom of the front frame part. As shown in figure 2 of Magyari, the bottom side of the first end 41 is inclined. In addition, the motivation used is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 28, Lapidot, as modified by Magyari, teaches the AR glasses wherein the optical unit is inclined in an angle between the rear side of the optical unit and the bottom of the front frame part of about 81˚ to 79˚. As shown in figure 2 of Magyari, the bottom side of the first end 41 is inclined.. Examiner notes that the limitation of “about” is broad and the claim should affirmatively recite the desired angles. In addition, the motivation used is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 29, Lapidot, as modified by Magyari, teaches the AR glasses wherein the optical unit is inclined in an angle between the rear side of the optical unit and the bottom of the front frame part of about 81˚ As shown in figure 2 of Magyari, the bottom side of the first end 41 is inclined.. Examiner notes that the limitation of “about” is broad and the claim should affirmatively recite the desired angles. In addition, the motivation used is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 30, Lapidot, as modified by Magyari, teaches the AR glasses wherein the display source (Lapidot, micro-display 39, Figure 3D), the at least one refractive device (Lapidot, two doublets 41, 41′ and a combined prism 42. The doublets 41, 41′ create a combined objective with equivalent focal length of 21 mm. Figure 3D, ¶ [0034]) and the beamsplitter (Lapidot, partial mirror surface 46 has a reflection of ≈50% and transmission of ≈50%. Figure 3D, ¶ [0034]) are arranged within the man frame or protrude from the main frame (Lapidot, FIG. 1 shows an AR device 10 according to the invention that is detachably clip-mounted on to the front of a spectacles frame 11 worn by an observer constituting a local user 12. By such means the device is mounted directly in front of the local user's eyes, allowing him to observe a scene through an exit window 13. Also, the local user can see graphical annotations projected to his eye by the detachable device 10 and overlaid on the real scene. There is no need to mount the device or any of its components on the temple pieces (side arms) of the user's spectacles. Figure 1, ¶ [0020]) (Magyari, Referring again to FIGS. 1 through 6, the primary transmission housing 40 is a chamber of the near-to-eye optics housing 15 in the HMD device 5 in which the projection of the visual content from the light-emitting visual source 20 originates, and in which the majority of the optical reflection and magnification of the projected visual content occurs. Figures 1-6, ¶ [0070]). In addition, the motivation used is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0223575 by Lapidot et al. (“Lapidot”), in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0266986 by Magyari (“Magyari”), and in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0212776 by Spitzer et al. (“Spitzer”).
As to claim 2, Lapidot, as modified by Magyari does not expressly teach the AR glasses wherein the at least one refractive device is a triplet lens.
Spitzer teaches a near-eye display device wherein the at least one refractive device is a triplet lens (Spitzer, The optical design of each lens system 820 is shown in FIG. 25, which shows a top view without the interconnect 800 shown. A central ray 870 propagates from the backlight 840 through the optical pipe 810 to the LCD 830… For example, if the index of refraction of the material 858 between the display and the eyelens is 1.5, and the physical length 889 is 1 cm, then the optical distance is 6.7 mm. This system is therefore capable of attaining a very low f-number and a high magnification. Such systems can benefit from the use of an aspheric doublet or triplet for eyelens 860 to reduce aberrations. Figure 25, ¶ [0086]).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lapidot’s doublets to include Spitzer’s aspheric triplet lens because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify Lapidot to include Spitzer is expressly provided by Spitzer, stating that an optical display system utilizing an aspheric triplet to reduce display aberrations (Spitzer, ¶ [0086]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lapidot’s doublets to include Spitzer’s aspheric triplet lens with the motivation of reducing aberration in the optical display. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of improving the display properties of a display system.
Thus, Lapidot, as modified by Magyari and Spitzer, teaches the refractive device being a triplet.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0223575 by Lapidot et al. (“Lapidot”), in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0266986 by Magyari (“Magyari”), and in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0322421 by Hunter et al. (“Hunter”).
As to claim 9, Lapidot, as modified by Magyari does not expressly teach the AR glasses wherein the main frame is made of poly(methyl methacrylate), called PMMA (polymethyl methacrylate), ABS (acrylonitrile butadiene styrene), or of cyclo olefin polymer, called COP, or of cyclic olefin copolymer, called COC.
Hunter teaches an eyewear display device wherein the main frame is made of poly(methyl methacrylate), called PMMA (polymethyl methacrylate), ABS (acrylonitrile butadiene styrene), or of cyclo olefin polymer, called COP, or of cyclic olefin copolymer, called COC (Hunter, The frame 112 and the frame sides 114 may be made from impact resistant, chemical resistant plastic such as polycarbonate or acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS). Figure 1, ¶ [0017]).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lapidot’s frame material to include Hunter’s ABS frame material because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, Lapidot’s frame material and Hunter’s ABS frame material perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being providing a frame material for the glasses display device. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself – that is in the substitution of Lapidot’s frame material by replacing it with Hunter’s ABS frame material. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Thus, Lapidot, as modified by Magyari and Hunter, teaches the frame made from ABS (acrylonitrile butadiene styrene).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0223575 by Lapidot et al. (“Lapidot”), in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0266986 by Magyari (“Magyari”), and in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0103325 by Mirza et al. (“Mirza”).
As to claim 17, Lapidot, as modified by Magyari does not expressly disclose the AR glasses the eyeglass frame comprises a nose pad unit, wherein the nose pad unit is movable relative to the front frame part in order to adjust the position of the eyeglass frame on a nose of a user.
Mirza teaches an ocular vision display system wherein the eyeglass frame comprises a nose pad unit, wherein the nose pad unit is movable relative to the front frame part in order to adjust the position of the eyeglass frame on a nose of a user (Mirza, An optical mechanism for adjusting a nose pad 2.5 of the spectacles 2.3 for height, enabling adjusting the vertical position of the eye box with respect to the nominal axis of sight of the eye of the user, is described below in relation to FIG. 3A. An alternative optional mechanism for adjusting the nose pad 2.5 for height, enabling adjusting the vertical positioning of the eye box with respect to the nominal axis of sight of the eye of the user, is described below in relation to FIG. 3B. An optional mechanism for adjusting horizontally the optical guide 2.4, enabling adjusting the horizontal positioning of the eye box with respect to the nominal axis of sight of the eye of the user, Figures 3A and 3B, ¶ [0062]).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lapidot’s nose pad to include Mirza’s adjustable nose pad because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, Lapidot’s nose pad and Mirza’s adjustable nose pad perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being providing a nose pad for glasses display devices. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself – that is in the substitution of Lapidot’s nose pad by replacing it with Mirza’s adjustable nose pad. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Thus, Lapidot, as modified by Magyari and Mirza, teaches an adjustable nose pad connected to the eyeglasses display device.
Claims 19 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0223575 by Lapidot et al. (“Lapidot”), in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0266986 by Magyari (“Magyari”), and in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0255748 by Kim et al. (“Kim”).
As to claim 19, Lapidot, as modified by Magyari, does not expressly disclose the AR glasses wherein front frame part comprise a cooling element arranged in the region of the electronic unit.
Kim teaches a near-eye display device wherein front frame part comprise a cooling element arranged in the region of the electronic unit (Kim, the heat radiator 400, specifically the fan 410, may operate at a different speed according to a detection value of the second sensing unit 270 according to an embodiment of the present disclosure (see FIG. 23). For example, if a temperature value detected by the second sensing unit 270 is equal to or lower than a predetermined threshold temperature T(ref), the controller 250 may control operation of the fan 410 in a predetermined first fan operating mode DM1 corresponding to a first fan speed. If the temperature value detected by the second sensing unit 270 is higher than the predetermined threshold temperature T(ref), the controller 250 may control operation of the fan 410 in a predetermined second fan operating mode DM2 corresponding to a second fan speed, where the second fan speed may be higher than the first fan speed. Figure 6, ¶ [0141]).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lapidot’s display device to include Kim’s temperature controlled head-mounted display device because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Kim’s temperature controlled head-mounted display device is comparable to Lapidot’s display device because both are directed to head-mounted display devices. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lapidot’s display device to include Kim’s temperature controlled head-mounted display device with the predictable result of providing a comfortable temperature controlled head-mounted display.
Thus, Lapidot, as modified by Magyari and Kim, teaches the fan unit provided in the head-mounted display.
As to claim 23, Lapidot, as modified by Magyari, does not expressly teach the AR glasses wherein the mounting means is a band.
Kim teaches a near-eye display device wherein the mounting means is a band (Kim, The support member 206 may secure the device 200 to the user's head. The support member 206 may be, for example, a band formed of an elastic material, eyeglass temples, a helmet, or a strap. Figure 3, ¶ [0077]).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lapidot’s temple arms to include Kim’s band because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, Lapidot’s temple arms and Kim’s band perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being providing a structure to mount the glasses to the user’s head. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself – that is in the substitution of Lapidot’s temple arms by replacing it with Kim’s band. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Thus, Lapidot, as modified by Magyari and Kim, teaches a band as the mounting member.
As to claim 24, Lapidot, as modified by Magyari and Kim, teaches wherein the AR glasses comprises at least one power source and wherein the at least one power source is arranged
a) between the front frame part and the band or
b) within the front frame part or
c) on the band (Lapidot, A built-in battery 77 provides power to the device components. Figure 6A, ¶ [0040]).
As to claim 25, Lapidot, as modified by Magyari, does not teach the AR glasses wherein a padding is arranged on a rear side of the main front part facing the user's forehead.
Kim teaches a near-eye display device wherein a padding is arranged on a rear side of the main front part facing the user's forehead (Kim, The face contact 202a is positioned in at least a part of the frame 202, specifically on a rear surface of the frame 202, as illustrated in FIG. 4. When the user wears the HMD on the face, the face contact 202a contacts the face of the user. The face contact 202a may be generally shaped to fit the face of a user, and may include a porous, elastic body in at least a part of the face contact 202a so that the face contact 202a may be stably brought into close contact with the face of the user, and may remove moisture caused by heat generated from the user's body. Figure 4, ¶ [0082]).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lapidot’s glasses display device to include Kim’s face contact pad because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Kim’s face contact pad is comparable to Lapidot’s glasses display device because both are directed to head-mounted display devices. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lapidot’s glasses display device to include Kim’s face contact pad with the predictable result of providing a padding for the user’s forehead who is wearing the head-mounted display device.
Thus, Lapidot, as modified by Magyari and Kim, teaches the face contact padding placed on the head-mounted display in the position to contact the user’s forehead.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-15 and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to dependent claim 10, Lapidot, as modified by Magyari, does not expressly teach the AR glasses wherein the main frame comprises a bottom end and wherein an end piece is attached to this bottom end, the end piece or the end piece together with the bottom end forming the beam splitter.
Specifically, the combination does not teach the bottom part of the primary transmission housing 40, of Magyari, as having a component which is used to form a beam splitter as claimed.
In addition, no other prior art was found which teaches, alone or in combination, the cited limitations.
As to dependent claims 11-15, these claims depend upon objected claim 10 and are objected to for the same reasons.
Examiner notes that claims 13-15 state that they depend upon claim 1, but due to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above, due to antecedent basis and following interpretation that these claims intended to depend upon claim 10, these claims are objected to as being depend upon objected claim 10.
As to claim 22, Lapidot, as modified by Magyari, does not expressly teach the AR glasses wherein the eyeglass frame comprises two hinges being arranged one above the other and connecting the first or second eyeglass temple with the front frame part, thereby forming a gap between each other, wherein a flexprint is arranged within the eyeglass frame leading from the first eyeglass temple or from the second eyeglass temple to the front frame part and wherein the flexprint is arranged in the gap between the two hinges leaving the hinges free.
Specifically, the combination does not teach the near-to-eye optics housing 15, of Magyari, as having the hinges as claimed.
In addition, no other prior art was found which teaches, alone or in combination, the cited limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9, 16-21, and 23-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT D CASTIAUX whose telephone number is (571)272-5143. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM- 4:00 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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-7772. 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.
/BRENT D CASTIAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623