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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 19, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 24 contains the limitation “wherein the shaft of the y-gear includes radially extending teeth configured to engage with the downwardly extending teeth of the upper portion of the micro-display holder (Emphasis Added).” The examiner notes that the term “the y-gear” fails to have antecedent basis in the claim language. The examiner believes this to be a typo and that the applicant intended to claim “the z-gear” and the claim will be treated as such. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 33 contains the limitation “further comprising a first compound optical element in the left opening, the first compound optical element comprising the first refractive optical lens element and comprising the first reflective optical surface of the left plurality of reflective optical surfaces, the respective first reflective optical surface disposed on the first refractive optical lens element, and a second compound optical element in the right opening, the second compound element comprising the second refractive optical lens element and comprising the first reflective optical surface of the second plurality of reflective optical surfaces, the respective first reflective optical surface disposed on the first refractive optical lens element (Emphasis Added).” The examiner notes that the terms “the first refractive optical lens” and “the second refractive optical lens” fail to have antecedent basis in Claim 33 and/or Claims 32 and 21 (from which Claim 33 depends). The examiner assumes this to be a typo and that the applicant intended to claim “a first refractive optical lens” and “a second refractive optical lens” and the claim will be treated as such. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 34 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 34 contains the limitation “a real-world view of the outside surrounding environment is transmittable through the respective one of the first and second refractive optical lens elements and then to the user’s left eye or the user’s right eye (Emphasis Added).” The examiner notes that the term “the first and second refractive optical lens elements” fails to have antecedent basis in Claim 34 and/or Claims 32 and 21 (from which Claim 34 depends). The examiner assumes this to be a typo and that the applicant intended to claim “a first and second refractive optical lens elements” and the claim will be treated as such. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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 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 21 – 30 and 32 – 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magyari (WO 2011/062591) in view of Mizoguchi et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,084,555).
Regarding Claim 21, Magyari teaches a head mounted display device comprising:
a structural frame (Figure 3, Element 15. Paragraph 27) including opposing upper and lower rims (Figure 3, Elements 10 and 40. Paragraph 39) between which are defined left and right openings (Figure 3, Elements 46 - 47. Paragraphs 40 - 41);
left and right micro-displays (Figure 3, Element 20. Paragraphs 31 - 33) coupled to the structural frame (Figure 3, Element 15. Paragraph 27), and configured to project visual content in a substantially forward direction (Seen in Figure 3A) toward the left and right openings (Figure 3, Elements 46 - 47. Paragraphs 40 - 41), respectively, and away from a user (Seen in Figure 3A);
a plurality of optical elements (Figure 3, Elements 30. Paragraphs 34 - 35) coupled to the structural frame (Figure 3, Element 15. Paragraph 27), wherein the structural frame (Figure 3, Element 15. Paragraph 27) maintains the micro-displays (Figure 3, Element 20. Paragraphs 31 - 33) and the optical elements (Figure 3, Elements 30. Paragraphs 34 - 35) in alignment to define an optical light path (Figure 3A, Element not labeled, but are the arrows. Paragraph 35) for reflectively guiding a light ray bundle from the micro-displays (Figure 3, Element 20. Paragraphs 31 - 33) to the user’s eyes (Figure 3A, Element not labeled, but is the user’s eye. Paragraph 35);
an outer frame (Figure 3A, Element 40. Paragraph 39) coupled to the structural frame (Figure 3, Element 15. Paragraph 27), wherein the outer frame (Figure 3A, Element 40. Paragraph 39) provides protection for the micro-displays (Figure 3, Element 20. Paragraphs 31 - 33) and optical elements (Figure 3, Elements 30. Paragraphs 34 - 35) and includes at least one mechanism (Figure 1, Element not labeled, but are the arms of the glasses.) for securing the head mounted display to a user’s head (Seen in Figure 1); and
first and second alignment mechanisms (Figures 2 and 4, Element 25. Paragraph 36) configured to align each of the left and right micro-displays (Figure 3, Element 20. Paragraphs 31 - 33), respectively, along a z-axis (Paragraph 36) that is generally along the user’s line of site (Seen in Figure 1).
Magyari is silent with regards to alignment mechanisms configured to align each of the left and right micro-displays, respectively along an x-axis that is horizontal and transverse to the user’s line of site.
Mizoguchi et al. teach alignment mechanisms (Figure 7, Element 60. Column 8, Lines 7 – 20) configured to align each of the left and right micro-displays (Figure 7, Elements 25. Column 6, Line 55 – Column 7, Line 4), respectively along an x-axis (Seen in Figure 7. Column 8, Lines 7 – 20) that is horizontal and transverse to the user’s line of site (Seen in Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of the heads-up display of Magyari with the cam mechanism of Mizoguchi et al. The motivation to modify the teachings of Magyari with the teachings of Mizoguchi et al. is to easily provide pupil distance and diopter adjustment, as taught by Mizoguchi et al. (Column 2, Lines 16 – 23).
Regarding Claim 22, Magyari in view of Mizoguchi et al. teach the head mounted display device of claim 21 (See Above). Magyari teaches wherein the alignment mechanisms each include:
a carriage (Figure 3, Element not shown, but is the part that connects Element 25 to the glasses. Paragraph ;
a micro-display (Figure 3, Element 20. Paragraphs 31 - 33) holder;
a z-gear (Figures 2 and 4, Element 25. Paragraph 36) configured to adjust the alignment of the left or right micro-display (Figure 3, Element 20. Paragraphs 31 - 33) along the z-axis (Paragraph 36).
Magyari is silent with regards to an x-gear configured to adjust the alignment of the left or right micro-display along the x-axis.
Mizoguchi et al. teach an x-gear (Figure 7, Element 60. Column 8, Lines 7 – 20) configured to adjust the alignment of the left or right micro-display (Figure 7, Elements 25. Column 6, Line 55 – Column 7, Line 4) along the x-axis (Seen in Figure 7. Column 8, Lines 7 – 20).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of the heads-up display of Magyari with the cam mechanism of Mizoguchi et al. The motivation to modify the teachings of Magyari with the teachings of Mizoguchi et al. is to easily provide pupil distance and diopter adjustment, as taught by Mizoguchi et al. (Column 2, Lines 16 – 23).
Regarding Claim 27, Magyari in view of Mizoguchi et al. teach the head mounted display device of claim 22 (See Above). Magyari teaches wherein the z-gear (Figures 2 and 4, Element 25. Paragraph 36) is configured for user manipulation via a user manipulation portion (Figures 2 and 4, Element 25. Paragraph 36) attached to the shaft of the z-gear.
Magyari is silent with regards to wherein the x-gear is configured for user manipulation via a user manipulation portion attached to the shaft of the x-gear.
Mizoguchi et al. teach wherein the x-gear (Figure 7, Element 60. Column 8, Lines 7 – 20) is configured for user manipulation via a user manipulation portion (Figure 7, Element 9. Column 8, Lines 7 – 20) attached to the shaft (Figure 7, Element 61. Column 8, Lines 7 – 20) of the x-gear (Figure 7, Element 60. Column 8, Lines 7 – 20).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of the heads-up display of Magyari with the cam mechanism of Mizoguchi et al. The motivation to modify the teachings of Magyari with the teachings of Mizoguchi et al. is to easily provide pupil distance and diopter adjustment, as taught by Mizoguchi et al. (Column 2, Lines 16 – 23).
Regarding Claim 28, Magyari in view of Mizoguchi et al. teach the head mounted display of claim 22 (See Above). Magyari teaches wherein adjustment of the left or right micro-display along the x-axis lines up a light beam originating from the micro-display with the user's left or right pupil, respectively.
Mizoguchi et al. teach wherein adjustment of the left or right micro-display (Figure 7, Elements 25. Column 6, Line 55 – Column 7, Line 4) along the x-axis lines up a light beam originating from the micro-display (Figure 7, Elements 25. Column 6, Line 55 – Column 7, Line 4) with the user's left or right pupil, respectively (Column 9, Lines 11 – 38).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of the heads-up display of Magyari with the cam mechanism of Mizoguchi et al. The motivation to modify the teachings of Magyari with the teachings of Mizoguchi et al. is to easily provide pupil distance and diopter adjustment, as taught by Mizoguchi et al. (Column 2, Lines 16 – 23).
Regarding Claim 29, Magyari in view of Mizoguchi et al. teach the head mounted display of claim 28 (See Above). Magyari is silent with regards to wherein adjustment of both the left and right micro-display along the x-axis adjusts the user's inter-pupil distance.
Mizoguchi et al. teach wherein adjustment of both the left and right micro-display (Figure 7, Elements 25. Column 6, Line 55 – Column 7, Line 4) along the x-axis adjusts the user's inter-pupil distance (Column 9, Lines 11 – 38).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of the heads-up display of Magyari with the cam mechanism of Mizoguchi et al. The motivation to modify the teachings of Magyari with the teachings of Mizoguchi et al. is to easily provide pupil distance and diopter adjustment, as taught by Mizoguchi et al. (Column 2, Lines 16 – 23).
Regarding Claim 30, Magyari in view of Mizoguchi et al. teach the head mounted display of claim 22 (See Above). Magyari teaches wherein adjustment of the left or right micro-display (Figure 3, Element 20. Paragraphs 31 - 33) along the z-axis (Paragraph 36) adjusts the focal point (Paragraph 36) of the light ray bundle reaching the user's eye (Figure 3A, Element not labeled, but is the user’s eye. Paragraph 35)from the left or right micro-display (Figure 3, Element 20. Paragraphs 31 - 33), respectively.
Regarding Claim 32, Magyari in view of Mizoguchi et al. teach the head mounted display of claim 21 (See Above). Magyari teaches wherein the plurality of optical elements (Figure 3, Elements 30. Paragraphs 34 - 35) coupled to the structural frame (Figure 3, Element 15. Paragraph 27) includes a left and a right plurality of reflective optical surfaces (Figure 3, Elements 30. Paragraphs 34 - 35) corresponding to the left and right micro-displays (Figure 3, Element 20. Paragraphs 31 - 33), respectively, the left and right plurality of reflective optical surfaces (Figure 3, Elements 30. Paragraphs 34 - 35) supported by the structural frame (Figure 3, Element 15. Paragraph 27), wherein at least one of each of the first and second plurality of reflective optical surfaces (Figure 3, Elements 30. Paragraphs 34 - 35) is a concave or convex (Paragraph 35) reflective optical surface, each of the left and right plurality of reflective optical surfaces (Figure 3, Elements 30. Paragraphs 34 - 35) comprising:
a first reflective optical surface (Figure 3A, Element 31. Paragraph 51) facing in a substantially rearward direction along the Z-axis (Paragraph 36);
a second reflective optical surface (Figure 3A, Element 33. Paragraph 51) facing in a substantially forward direction along the Z-axis (Paragraph 36); and
a third reflective optical surface (Figure 3A, Element 34. Paragraph 51) facing in a substantially rearward direction along the Z-axis (Paragraph 36), to define an optical path comprising:
a first optical path (Seen in Figure 3A) segment directed forward along the Z-axis (Paragraph 36) and downward (Paragraph 54. Magyari teaches that the disclosed invention could be implemented above the users eye which would make each path downward in the Y-axis.) along a Y-axis from the light-emitting visual source (Figure 3, Element 20. Paragraphs 31 - 33) to the first reflective optical surface (Figure 3A, Element 31. Paragraph 51),
a second optical path (Seen in Figure 3A) segment directed rearward with respect to the Z-axis (Paragraph 36) and downward (Paragraph 54. Magyari teaches that the disclosed invention could be implemented above the users eye which would make each path downward in the Y-axis.) with respect to the Y-axis from the first reflective optical surface (Figure 3A, Element 31. Paragraph 51) to the second reflective optical surface (Figure 3A, Element 33. Paragraph 51),
a third optical path (Seen in Figure 3A) segment directed forward along the Z-axis (Paragraph 36) and downward (Paragraph 54. Magyari teaches that the disclosed invention could be implemented above the users eye which would make each path downward in the Y-axis.) along the Y-axis from the second reflective optical surface (Figure 3A, Element 33. Paragraph 51) to the third reflective optical surface (Figure 3A, Element 34. Paragraph 51), and
a fourth optical path (Seen in Figure 3A) segment directed rearward along the Z-axis (Paragraph 36) and downward (Paragraph 54. Magyari teaches that the disclosed invention could be implemented above the users eye which would make each path downward in the Y-axis.) along the Y-axis from the third reflective optical surface (Figure 3A, Element 34. Paragraph 51);
wherein the Y-axis is perpendicular to the x-axis and the z-axis (Paragraph 36), and wherein the downward direction (Paragraph 54. Magyari teaches that the disclosed invention could be implemented above the users eye which would make each path downward in the Y-axis.) with respect to the Y-axis is in a direction of gravity when the user is standing erect and wearing the head mounted display (Figure 1, Element 5. Paragraph 57).
Regarding Claim 34, Magyari in view of Mizoguchi et al. teach the head mounted display of claim 32 (See Above). Magyari teaches wherein, simultaneous with the transmission of the visual content to the user’s left eye or the user’s right eye (Figure 1, Element not labeled, but are the first and second eye. Paragraph 27), a real-world view of the outside surrounding environment is transmittable through the respective one of the first and second refractive optical lens elements (Figures 1 - 9C, Element 47. Paragraph 44) and then to the user’s left eye or the user’s right eye (Figure 1, Element not labeled, but are the first and second eye. Paragraph 27); wherein the visual content is overlaid onto the real-world view of the outside surrounding environment in response to transmission of the real-world view (Paragraph 47).
Regarding Claim 35, Magyari in view of Mizoguchi et al. teach the head mounted display of claim 21 (See Above). Magyari teaches wherein the plurality of optical elements (Figure 3, Elements 30. Paragraphs 34 - 35) coupled to the structural frame (Figure 3, Element 15. Paragraph 27) includes first and second plurality of reflective optical surfaces (Figure 3, Elements 30. Paragraphs 34 - 35) corresponding to the left and right micro-displays (Figure 3, Element 20. Paragraphs 31 - 33), respectively, the first and second plurality of reflective optical surfaces (Figure 3, Elements 30. Paragraphs 34 - 35) supported by the structural frame (Figure 3, Element 15. Paragraph 27), wherein at least one of each of the first and second plurality of reflective optical surfaces (Figure 3, Elements 30. Paragraphs 34 - 35) is a concave or convex reflective optical surface (Paragraph 35), and wherein the visual content is reflected within the plurality of first and second reflective optical surfaces (Figure 3, Elements 30. Paragraphs 34 - 35) at least four times (Seen in Figure 3A) without passing through a refractive optical lens element (Figures 1 - 9C, Element 47. Paragraph 44).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23 – 25 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: The prior art of record fails to teach at least “wherein the carriage defines slots configured to constrain motion of the micro-display holder, an opening for receiving a shaft of the x-gear, and an opening for receiving a shaft of the z-gear” of Claims 23 and 21, from which Claim 23 depends. Claims 24 and 25 inherit this objection.
Claim 26 is 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: The prior art of record fails to teach at least “wherein the micro-display holder includes outwardly extending tabs configured to be received in the slots of the carriage, thereby restraining rotational motion of the micro-display” of Claims 26 and 21, from which Claim 26 depends.
Claim 31 is 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: The prior art of record fails to teach at least “wherein the structural frame has a higher elastic modulus than the outer frame sufficient to maintain the micro-displays and the optical elements in accurate and dimensionally stable optical alignment” of Claims 31 and 21, from which Claim 31 depends.
Claim 33 is 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: The prior art of record fails to teach at least “further comprising a first compound optical element in the left opening, the first compound optical element comprising the first refractive optical lens element and comprising the first reflective optical surface of the left plurality of reflective optical surfaces, the respective first reflective optical surface disposed on the first refractive optical lens element, and a second compound optical element in the right opening, the second compound element comprising the second refractive optical lens element and comprising the first reflective optical surface of the second plurality of reflective optical surfaces, the respective first reflective optical surface disposed on the first refractive optical lens element” of Claims 33, 32, and 21; from which Claim 33 depends.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW B SCHNIREL whose telephone number is (571)270-7690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 - 6 EST.
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, William Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
/A.B.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2625
/WILLIAM BODDIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2625